1^6     T'^eadeil-^i— - 


Southern  Branch 
of  the 

University  of  California 

Los  Angeles 

Form  L  1 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  belo% 


Form  L-9-15i)(-10,"25 


THE  LATIN  PRONOUNS. 


THE  LATIN   PRONOUNS 


IS   :  HIC   :  ISTE   :  IPSE 


A  SEMASIOLOGICAL  STUDY 


BY 

Clarence  Linton  Meader,  Ph.D., 

INSTRUCTOR    IN    LATIN    IN    THE    UNIVERSITY    OF    MICHIGAN 


JQetJ)  porfe 
THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

LONDON:   MACMILI^AN  CO.,  LTD. 
I9OI 

All  rights  reserved 


Copyright,  1901,  by 
Clarence  Linton  Meader. 


Ann  Arbor  Printing  Company 
"the  inland  press" 


TO 

PROFESSOR    EDUARD   von  WOELFFLIN 

THIS  WORK  IS 
RESPECTFUI.I.Y   AND   GRATEFULLY 
DEDICATED. 


PREFACE. 

The  general  plan  of  the  following  book'  was  out- 
lined and  the  collection  of  material  begun  in  Munich, 
in  the  summer  of  1898.  By  June  1899  such  progress 
had  been  made,  that  I  found  it  possible  to  state  my 
results  in  a  form  sufficiently  definite  to  enable  Pro- 
fessor Wolfflin  to  make  an  abstract  of  the  same  for 
publication  in  the  eleventh  volume  of  the  Archiv  fiir 
lateinische  Lexikographie  und  Grammatik.  Since  my 
return  to  America  in  the  fall  of  1899,  I  have  devoted 
such  spare  time  as  the  duties  of  my  position  have 
allowed,  to  the  further  investigation  of  the  subject, 
and  have  been  able  not  only  to  add  important  new 
results  to  those  already  obtained,  but  to  extend  and 
illustrate  still  more  fully  by  varied  citations  the  results 
set  forth  in  the  printed  abstract. 

The  original  plan  of  the  work  provided  for  a  chap- 
ter on  ille  and  one  on  idem.  These  would  have 
formed  chapters  II  and  III,  the  present  chapters  II, 
III,  IV  and  V  becoming  IV,  V,  VI  and  VII.  As 
they  are  not  yet  in  a  suitable  form  for  printing,  they 
are  omitted  for  the  present.  The  results  thus  far 
obtained  in  the  study  of  the  two  pronouns  are  partly 
given  in  chapter  V. 

1  In  the  summer  of  1900  chapter  I  and  Section  A.  of  chap- 
ter II  were  submitted  to  the  classical  faculty  of  the  University 
of  Michigan  as  a  thesis  for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy. 


viii  Preface. 

The  present  work  contains  the  results  of  a  Hne  of 
investigation,  in  the  conduct  of  which  the  historical 
method  has  been  followed.     In  this  particular  it  differs 
from  all  others  that  have  been  written  on  the  subject. 
The  most  important  of  the  modern  treatises,  that  of 
Joseph  Bach,  extensive  as  it  is  (270  pages),  makes  no 
effort  to  discuss  the  pronouns  from  this  point  of  view. 
It  is  confined  almost  entirely  to  the  usage  of  the  ante- 
classical  period,  and  has  for  its  main  object  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  thesis,  that  in  the  scriptores  prisci  the 
three  demonstratives  hie,  iste  and  ille  correspond  to 
the  three  persons  of  the  verb  respectively.     The  only 
attempts  of  a  historical  nature  that  have  hitherto  been 
made  are  in  the  form  of  brief  notices,  to  be  found,  for 
example,  in  Schmalz's  Lateinische  Syntax  and  in  vari- 
ous monographs  on  the  Latinity  of  particular  writers. 
These  rarely  exceed  a  page  or  two  in  extent,  and  from 
the  nature  of  the  case  make  no  claim  to  being  any- 
thing else  than  fragments.     Such  works  are,    to  be 
sure,  of  very  great  value,  and  without  them  an  his- 
torical grammar  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word  would 
be  impossible.     Yet  they  have  their  limitations  and 
necessarily  lack  the  perspective  gained  by  following 
the  changing  meanings  of  the  words  through  several 
centuries  and  by  observing  their  relationships  to  each 
other  and  to  synonymous  expressions. 

The  selection  of  Latin  texts  from  which  the  mate- 
rial for  the  present  work  was  taken,  is  very  full  and 
representative,  and  covers  every  period  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  Latin  language  from  Plautus  to  Isidore, 
as  may  be  seen  from  the  list  of  sources  printed  at  the 
end  of  the  volume. 


Preface.  ix 

In  the  statement  of  the  deductions  made  from  this 
collection  of  data,  my  object  has  been  to  adduce  the 
evidence  for  the  existence  of  each  usage,  to  trace  as 
far  as  possible  its  gradual  development  through  all  the 
periods  in  which  it  is  found,  and  to  illustrate  its  vari- 
ous aspects  by  typical  examples.  While  attention  has 
been  directed  mainly  to  the  post-classical  usages,  some 
parts  of  the  volume  deal  quite  fully  with  usages  of 
the  pronouns  that  are  distinctively  classical;  and  it  is 
hoped  that  the  remaining  chapters  contain  much  that 
will  prove  of  interest  and  value  for  the  full  under- 
standing of  the  Ciceronian  and  Augustan  I^atinity. 
Throughout  the  entire  work,  the  so  called  "regular" 
or  ' '  classical ' '  meanings  of  the  words  have  been 
treated,  whenever  some  discussion  of  them  was  neces- 
sary to  the  understanding  of  the  later  meanings;  and 
no  pains  have  been  spared  to  search  out  in  the  classical 
writers  the  beginings  of  the  later  changes,  or  the  con- 
ditions out  of  which  they  grew. 

The  following  chapters,  however,  are  by  no  means 
to  be  regarded  as  a  complete  history  of  the  pronouns 
under  discussion.  The  changes  dealt  with  have  been 
set  forth  in  broad  general  lines;  and,  although  the 
development  of  each  meaning  is  traced  from  its  first 
appearance  as  far  downward  as  possible,  a  detailed 
analysis  of  the  questions  treated  or  of  the  passages 
cited  has  rarely  been  entered  upon.  The  forms  of  the 
words  have  received  attention,  only  when  they  have 
materially  affected  the  meaning.  The  magnitude  of 
the  entire  investigation  has  made  it  necessary  to  omit 
the  discussion  of  such  questions  as  the  psychological 
nature  of  the  changes  involved,  the  special  conditions 


X  Preface. 

to  which  individual  authors  were  subjected,  and  the 
influence  of  one  author  upon  another.  At  ahnost 
every  step  in  the  progress  of  the  work  important  prob- 
lems have  arisen  and  glimpses  of  interesting  fields 
awaiting  the  student  have  often  tempted  me  to  turn 
aside  for  a  moment.  Yet  rarely  has  a  brief  space  of 
time  been  devoted  to  these  minor  questions.  They 
are  reserved  for  the  future.  The  wide  and  varied 
reading  both  of  the  Latin  texts  and  of  the  modern 
authorities  has  in  itself  been  no  small  task.  Never- 
theless it  seems  unwise  to  defer  publication  any  longer. 
It  is  hoped  that  the  book,  mere  outline  as  it  is,  may 
justify  its  existence. 

One  who  has  himself  conducted  a  line  of  research 
involving  so  many  different  problems  and  requiring  so 
extensive  a  collection  of  data  as  the  present  one,  will 
be  the  first  to  appreciate  the  difficulties  of  the  work 
and  to  overlook  any  defects  that  it  may  contain.  All 
friendly  criticisms  and  suggestions  will  be  gratefully 
received. 

I  take  this  opportunity  to  express  my  thanks  to 
those  who  have  aided  me  in  my  work.  I  can  scarcely 
hope  to  be  able  ever  to  repay  the  debt  of  gratitude  I 
owe  Professor  Wolfflin,  who  with  unsparing  gener- 
osity and  by  the  sacrifice  of  much  of  his  valuable  time, 
aided  me  with  continual  encouragement  and  advice. 
By  placing  his  excellent  library  and  other  resources  at 
my  service,  he  so  facilitated  my  work,  that  I  was 
enabled  in  less  than  three  semesters  to  accomplish  as 
much  as  would  have  required  as  many  years  under 
less  favorable  circumstances.  Likewise  to  my  former 
teachers.  Professors  Martin  L.   D'Ooge,  Francis  W. 


Preface.  xi 

Kelsey,  John  C.  Rolfe,  George  Hempl  and  Joseph  H. 
Drake,  of  the  University  of  Michigan,  I  desire  to 
express  my  gratitude  both  for  my  collegiate  training 
in  linguistics  and  for  many  valuable  suggestions  on 
this  book.  Professor  Rolfe  and  Dr.  Henry  A.  San- 
ders, of  the  University  of  Michigan,  and  Dr.  George 
V.  Edwards,  of  Olivet  College,  have  been  so  kind  as 
to  read  all  the  proofs,  and  have  called  my  attention  to 
numerous  defects  that  would  otherwise  have  escaped 
my  notice. 

Great  as  these  obligations  are,  they  can  scarcely  be 
greater  than  those  I  owe  my  wife,  who  by  her  sympa- 
thetic and  intelligent  appreciation  of  my  work  has 
afforded  me  much  assistance,  and  has  been  to  me  an 
unfailing  source  of  inspiration. 

Ann  Arbor,  Mich., 
Dec.  24,  1900. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I.     IS. 

PAGE. 

Introductory,        .......       3 

A.  Is  in  Poetry. 

1 .  Frequency  of  its  Occurrence  in  the  Scrip- 
tores  Prisci  and  Lucretius,  in  Catullus,  the 
Writers  of  Elegy  and  Idyls,  in  Epic  Poetry, 
in  Satire  and  kindred  Branches,  in  Didactic 
Epos, 8 

2.  General  Attitude  of  the  Poets  toward  the 
Word .         .13 

3.  Attitude  of  the  Poets  toward  the  special 
Forms  of  the  Word:  Preference  for  the 
forms  is,  ea  and  id  and  Avoidance  of  all 
other  Forms. — Reasons  for  this  Attitude,   .     15 

B.  Ism.  Prose  Literature. 

1.  Legal  and  other  Scientific  Literature,     .  28 

2.  History,  etc.,      .         .         .         .         .         .30 

3.  Pompeius,  Commentum  in  Donatum,      .         32 


xiv  Contents. 

CHAPTER  II.     HIC. 

A,  The  Rivalry  between  Hie  and  Is. 

1.  Eo  =  Ideo,  Hoc  =  Ideo,  .         .         .         -35 

2.  Eo  with  the  Comparative  and  Hoc  with 

the  Comparative,    .....  48 

3.  Id  est  and  Hoc  est,     .         .         .         .         -53 

4.  Ad  id  and  Ad  hoc,  ....         66 

a.  =  Praeterea,     .         .         .         .         .66 

b.  Expressing  Purpose,     .         .         .  71 

5.  Ob  id  and  Ob  hoc,      .  .         .         .         -73 

B.  The  Correlations  Hie— Ille,  Hie— Hie,  Ille— 

Ille,  etc. 

1.  Hie— Ille, 79 

a.  Relative  Order  of  the  two  correlated 
Clauses,    ......     80 

b.  The      adjectival      and      substantive 
Forms,  .....  82 

c.  The  adverbial  Forms,        .         .         .89 

2.  Hie— Hie, 96 

a.  The      adjectival      and      substantive 
Forms,     .         .         .         .         .         -97 

b.  The  adverbial  Forms,   .         .         .        loi 

3.  Ille— Ille, 105 

Note  on  Ille,  Hie  and  Is  in  legal  Formulae,       .        107 

CHAPTER  HI.     ISTE. 

Introductory. — The  Etymology  and  the  classical 
Meaning  of  Iste,      .         .         .         .         .         .111 

A.  Iste  =  Hie. 

I.    Evidence  proving  the  Usage,  .         .        116 

a.  Iste  tuus,  ^/c,  ....  116 


Contents.  xv 

b.  The  Employment  of  Iste  outside  of 
direct  discourse,        .         .         .         •   1 1 7 

c.  The  Collocations  iste  meus,  iste  nos- 
ter,  etc.,         .  .  .  .  .120 

d.  Iste  Referring  to  Objects  connected 
with  the  Speaker,     .         .         .         .121 

e.  Iste  Employed  in  Connections  usu- 
ally Reserved  for  Hie,  .         .        125 

f.  Iste  and  Hie  refering  to  the  same 
Antecedent,       .         .         .         .         -131 

g.  Iste — Ille  =  Hie — Ille,  .         .        132 
h.  Iste  ■=  ouro<;  in  early  lyatin  Transla- 
tions from  the  Greek,        .  .         -137 

i.  The  Evidence  furnished  by  the  Glos- 
ses,      ......        142 

j .  The  Evidence  of  the  Romance  Lan- 
guages,      143 

k.  The  Testimony  of  the  Roman  Gram- 
marians,       .         .         .  .         .144 

I.  The  incorrect  Orthography  Isthic,     .   144 

2.  Geographical  Extension  of  the  Usage,    .        144 

3.  Chronological  Limits  of  the  Usage,     .         .145 

4.  Relative  Frequency  of  the  Use  of  Iste  and 
Hie, 149 

5.  Semasiological  Nature  of  the  Change,  .   152 
B.  Iste  =  Ille  or  Is, 159 

CHAPTER  IV.     IPSE. 
Introductory. — The  classical  Usage. 
A.  Ipse  =  Idem. 

I.  The  Phrases  ipse  qui,  is  ipse,  ille  ipse,  hoc 
ipse,  iste  ipse,  and  particularly  id  ipsum 
and  hoc  ipsum,  expressing  Identity,        .        163 


xvi  Contejits. 

2.  Ipse  unsupported  by  another  Pronoun,   .        171 

a.  Ipse  parallel  with  Idem  or  Unus,       .  175 

b.  Ipse  contrasted  with  Alius  and  Alter,  177 

c.  Ipse  =  Idem  in  short  adverbial  For- 
mulae or  Phrases,           .         .         .  177 

d.  Ipse  =  Idem  as  proved  by  the  gen- 
eral Context,     .         .         .         .         .178 

e.  Ipse  =  o  auroc^       .            .            .            .  180 

f.  The  Evidence  of  the  Glosses,    .  .182 

3.  Geographical  Limits  of  the  Usage,           ,  182 

4.  Chronological  Limits  of  the  Usage,     .  .183 

5.  Ipse  =  Item, 184 

B.  Ipse  —  Ille  or  Is,    .         .         .         .         .  .184 

CHAPTER   V.     THE  DETERMINATIVE 
AND  THE  DEFINITE  ARTICLE. —SUMMARY. 

A.  The  Determinative. 

1.  Ille  =  is, 193 

2.  Hie  =  is, 195 

3.  Idem  =  is, 196 

4.  Ipse  =  is, 196 

B.  The  Definite  Article, 197 

1.  Ille  =  Definite  Article,  .         .         ,        198 

2.  Is  =  Definite  Article,  .         .         .         .198 

3.  Hie  =  Definite  Article,  .         .         .        199 

4.  Iste  =  (?)  Definite  Article,  .         .         ,  205 

5.  Idem  =  Definite  Article,         .         .         .        206 

6.  Ipse  =  Definite  Article,      ....  208 

C.  Summary  and  Conclusion,  .         .         .        213 

Sources, 218 

Addenda  and  Corrigenda,    .         .         .         .221 


CHAPTER  1.     IS. 


CHAPTER  I.     IS. 

In  the  stud}'  of  these  pronouns  we  may  profitably 
begin  with  the  determinative  is.  It  is  the  simplest  in 
its  elements  {cf.  *ol-so  >  ille,  *e-p-so  >  ipse,  *e-so- 
to  >  iste,  *ho-i-ce  >  hie),'  and  in  all  the  periods  of 
the  I^atin  language  it  is  the  weakest  in  meaning  of 
the  above  mentioned  pronouns  (see  Schmalz,  Latein- 
ische  Syntax  in  Iwan  Miiller's  Handbuch  der  kl.  Alt, 
II. 2,  3d  ed.  p.  444  :  "es  schliff  sich  auch  als  kleines 
Wortchen  sehr  bald  so  ab,  dass  es  iiberhaupt  fast  ganz 
ausser  Kurs  kam' ' ) .  Traces  of  an  original  stronger 
demonstrative  force  are  not  far  to  seek.  We  may  men- 
tion the  familiar  use  of  is  qui  in  the  sense  approaching 
that  of  talis  ut  (see  Harpers'  Latin  I,exicon  5.  v.  for 
citations  from  Cicero,  and  add  Sen.  Contr.  3,3;  Veil. 
Pat.  2,82,2  ea  adiit  pericula,  a  quibus  seruari  se  posse 
desperauerat;  Plin.  Epist.  3,12,4;  Gerber  and  Greef, 
Lex  Tac.  p.  709  d)  "i.  q.  talis,  eiusmodi").  Still 
more  clearly  does  this  force  of  the  pronoun  appear 
when  it  serves  to  introduce  an  ut-clause,  as  in  Plant. 
Capt.  934f. 

Pater,  et  petere  a  te  ego  potero  et  di  eam  potesta- 
tem  dabunt,  [res. 

Ut  beneficium  bene  merenti  nostro  merito  mune- 


^  These  are  the  derivations  accepted  by  Stolz  (Historische 
Grammatik,  1894). 


4  The  Latin  Pronoims, 

Such  passages  are  rare  in  Plautus;  a  second  instance  is 
Poen.  1 1 86  eo  genere.  Later  examples  are:  Nepos, 
Them.  6,i((/'.  Lupus,  Der  Sprachgebrauch  d.  C.  Ne- 
pos p.  no);  Veil.  Pat.  2,90,4;  Plin.  Epist.  6,6,8;  6, 
14,1  ea  conditione  ne;  Tac.  Dial.  23,20  ita...ea... 
is. . -ea. .  .ea. .  .is. .  .ea. .  .sic.  .  .sic. .  . ,  ut...;  Ann. 
1, 6, 20 (see  G.  and  G.,  Lex.  /.  c.)\  Censorinus  1,6;  Jus- 
tin 37,1,7;  Script.  Histor.  Augustae,  Geta  7,4  etc.; 
Tertullian,  Ad  Nationes  1,7^;  Lactantius,  De  Opi- 
ficio  Dei  4,3;  12;  Ambrosius,  Exameron  2,3,ii(27E); 
Augustine,  Epist.  22, 4W  bis;  Alcimus  Avitus  7(6), 
p.  35,i2(P);  Boethius,  De  Consolatione  Philosophiae 
i,6/>;'.,28.  A  stronger  demostrative  force,  approach- 
ing the  normal  meaning  of  ille,  is  also  to  be  observed 
in  such  passages  as  Plant.  Trin.  746 

. .  .  .atque  ea  condicio  uel  primariast; 
Amph.  781 

Haec  east  profecto  patera; 

Caecil.  Statius,  28  f. (p.  33R)  {aptid  Cicero,  De  Sen.  25 

and  Nonius  1,20) 

Turn  equidem  in  senecta  hoc  deputo  miserrimum, 
Sentire  ea  aetate  ipsum  esse  odiosum  alteri. 

Cf.  Virg.  Aen.  3,393.  In  other  instances  the  stronger 
demonstrative  force  of  the  pronoun  is  evident  from 
the  fact  that  the  word  it  modifies  is  contrasted  with 
another  {cf.  Plant.  Stich.  239-241;  Men.  574),  or  is 
itself  repeated  {cf.  Asin.  179;  True.  122;  Trin.  238; 
Ovid,  Met.  7,43 f).  With  the  demonstrative  hie  such 
a  repetition  is  very  common  in  all  periods  both  with 
poets  and  prose  writers  (Plant.  Men.  132;  Horace 
often).     Ille  is  not  so  often  repeated  in  this  way  as 


Is  in  Pfose  and  Poetry.  5 

hie.  The  repetition  of  the  determinative  is  uncommon. 
These  and  similar  types  of  construction,  in  which  the 
determinative  bears  traces  of  a  stronger  force,  are  met 
in  all  periods  of  the  literature. 

In  dealing  with  the  semasiological  and  syntactical 
changes  of  this  pronoun,  it  will  be  necessary,  as  the 
sequel  will  show,  to  draw  a  sharp  distinction  both  be- 
tween the  usage  of  the  prose  writers  and  of  the  poets, 
and  between  the  various  subdivisions  of  these  two 
great  branches,  e.g.,  between  technical  prose,  history 
and  oratory;  between  the  epos  (in  the  narrower  sense) , 
satire,  lyric  poetry,  etc.  Within  these  smaller  groups 
again  it  will  be  advisable  to  distinguish  the  chronologi- 
cal relations  of  the  authors.  There  is  entire  justifica- 
tion for  thus  classifying  the  Roman  prose  literature; 
for,  while  a  classification  of  modern  prose  literature 
on  the  basis  of  the  prominence  of  poetical  or  rhetorical 
characteristics  would  doubtless  lead  to  great  confusion 
and  many  inconsistencies,  the  case  was  entirely  differ- 
ent with  the  Greeks  and  the  Romans.  This  is  apparent 
from  the  two  passages  Cic.  De  I^eg.  1,5  opus  i^sc.  his- 
toriae)  unum  hoc  oratorium  maxime;  Quintilian  10, 
1,31  historia  est  proxima  poetis  et  quodam  modo  car- 
men solutum.  For  further  details  on  the  style  of 
historical  composition  in  antiquity  see  Norden,  Die 
An  tike  Kunstprosa  1,81-95.  The  poetical  coloring  of 
I,ivy,  particularly  of  the  first  decade,  will  at  once 
occur  to  the  reader,  although  it  must  not  be  over- 
looked that  the  Augustan  historian  adopted  a  more 
sober  st5de  after  he  had  completed  the  first  decade,  the 
subject  matter  of  which  was  poeticis  magis  decora 
fabulis  quam  incorruptis  rerum  gestarum  monumentis. 


6  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

It  will  also  be  recalled  that  the  details  of  the  complete 
history  of  Rome  which  Cicero  and  Atticus  contem- 
plated writing  conjointly,  were  so  arranged  that  Atticus 
was  to  establish  the  historical  facts,  while  Cicero  was 
to  furnish  the  rhetorical  embellishments  {cf.  the  corre- 
spondence with  Atticus  for  the  year  45  and  Plutarch's 
Cicero  41). 

A.      IS  IN    POETRY. 

We  take  up  first  the  use  of  is  in  the  poetical  Htera- 
ture  of  the  Romans,  because  it  is  here  that  we  find 
the  most  striking  proofs  of  the  weakening  of  its  force 
and  its  gradual  disuse.  The  French  editor  Dacier  ap- 
pears to  have  been  the  first  to  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  expression  eius  atque  in  Horace,  Ode  3,11,18 
is  unpoetical.  The  eminent  Bentley  in  his  note  on  this 
passage  says:  "sed  poetae  epici,  magno  sane  cum 
iudicio,  uocabulum  hoc  perpetuo  mulctarunt  exilio;  ne 
heroici  carminis  maiestatem  humi  serpere  cogerent; 
utpote  singulis  fere  periodis  recm-surum,  ni  stilo  subin- 
telligerentur  extrinsecus,  neque  praesentia  sua  uersus 
inquinaret.  inde  est  quod  in  toto  UirgiHo  ne  semel 
quidem  occurrit  eius,  bis  duntaxat  in  Ouidio,  ut 
Trist.  3,4,27."  (a  third,  but  doubtful  passage  is  Met. 
8,16)  "  . .  .eo  tamen  peius  noster  (?.  e.  Horace),  et  quod 
in  carmine  lyrico  longe  supra  Ouidii  elegos  surgere 
debuerit,  et  quod. .  . "  Adolf  Kiesshng's  note  on  eius 
in  O.  4,8,18  in  part  confirms,  in  part  contradicts  and  in 
part  expands  Bentley's  affirmation:  "der  sonst  der 
Sprache  der  Oden,  wie  iiberhaupt  gehobenem  Ausdruck 
fremde  Gebrauch  von  is  (doch  scheut  die  Elegie  das 
Pronomen  nicht)  mag  hier  durch  den  scherzhaften 
Zug,  der  durch  das  ganze  Gedicht  geht,  sich  entschuld- 


Is  in  Poetry.  7 

igen  lasseii."  Bentley  does  not  comment  on  this  pas- 
sage. Kiessling  brackets  the  stanza  in  which  eius 
occurs,  3,11,18.  As  for  the  reason  that  led  the  poets 
to  avoid  this  word,  both  Kiesshng  and  Bentley  hint 
vaguely  that  it  is  unpoetical.  Bentlej^  seems  to  be 
condemning  only  the  form  eius,  while  Kiessling' s  state- 
ment may  be  understood  to  include  all  the  forms  of 
the  pronoun.  I  know  Dacier's  attitude  only  from 
Schiitz,  3d  ed.  (1889),  p.  402.  Grosrau,  Sprachlehre, 
§382,  H,  Anm.  2  makes  a  somewhat  more  definite  and 
detailed  statement:  "Wie  et  id,  idque  auf  den  ganzen 
Satz  bezogen,  so  steht  isque  am  Anfang  des  Satzes 
scharf  hinwei.send  bei  Cicero,  haufig  bei  Virgil,  1,215; 
3,596;  4,203;  6,684  ^^  ^^-  Sonst  haben  die  Dichter 
hoheren  Stiles  das  Wort  vermieden,  da  es  mir formelle 
Beziehung ,  keine  eigentliche  Bedeutung  haV  (the  italics 
are  mine).  Quite  a  different  reason  is  assigned  by 
Schmalz , /. f.  "Is  war  den  Dichtern  unbequem,  weil 
es  sich  nicht  gut  in  den  Vers  fiigt,  und  so  meiden  es 
Catull,  Virgil,  Horaz,  I^ucan,  auch  der  Metriker  Ter- 
entian,  sichtlich."  This  statement  seems  to  be  a 
somewhat  misleading  abridgment  of  Obermeier,  Der 
Sprachgebrauch  des  M.  Annaeus  I^ucanus,  p.  15: 
"Ohne  Zweifel  war  dieses  Pronomen. .  .zu  unbequem 
da  sich  seine  obliquen  Casus  nur  schlecht  in  den  Hexa- 
meter fiigten."  The  questions  suggested  by  all  these 
inadequate  statements  are  numerous  and  render  im- 
perative a  careful  examination  of  the  entire  problem. 
In  the  investigation  of  this  question  it  will  be 
necessary  first,  as  suggested  above,  to  determine  the 
relative  frequency  of  is  in  the-  poets  as  compared  with 
that  in  the  prose  writers. 


8  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

Proceeding  chronologically  let  us  begin  with  a 
review  of  the  usage  of  the  early  poets.  Taking  a 
selection  from  their  extant  works  and  fragments  large 
enough  to  be  representative,  we  obtain  the  following 
table  of  percentages:' 


hie 

is 

ille 

ipse 

iste 

idem 

Comicorum  fragmenta  ed. 

Ribbeck 

42 

25 

20 

4 

7 

2yi 

Tragicorum          " 

i( 

i( 

33 

30 

16 

10 

6 

5 

Plauti 

js,  Captivi 

40 

26K 

16 

1% 

13 

iJ^ 

ti 

Casina 

34 

29 

22 

2j^ 

12 

I 

t( 

Menaechmi 

43 

20 

18H 

^Yi 

12 

2j^ 

t( 

Trinummus 

30?^ 

33 

18K 

7% 

9 

IJ^ 

ti 

average  of  the 

above 

37 

275^ 

i8j^ 

A% 

iij^ 

I?^ 

Ennii 

fragmenta 

38 

23 

I7M 

10 

3J^ 

7 

This  table  is  based  upon  the  following  total  number  of 
occurrences  of  these  pronouns:  Comici  319,  Tragici 
187,  Captivi  422,  Casina  254,  Menaechmi  372,  Tri- 
nummus 500,  (excluding  prologues);  Knnius  153. 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  table  that  the  pronoun  is 
occurs  more  frequently  than  any  of  the  others  with 
the  exception  of  hie,  and  in  one  instance,  that  of  the 
Trinummus,  more  frequently  than  hie.  Ennius'  use 
of  is  will  be  discussed  more  in  detail  below. 

lyucretius  in  his  usage  of  these  pronouns  holds  a 
place  very  near  the  archaic  poets,  a  circumstance  which 
is  of  importance  as  furnishing  further  evidence  of  his 
sympathies  with  these  writers,  and  showing  his  de- 
pendence upon  them.  In  books  i,  2,  3,  6  of  his  poem 
the  above  pronouns  occur  in  the  following  proportions: 

hie  34,  is  25,  ipse  20,  ille  14,  idem  8,  iste  o.     In 


^  It  has  not  been  thought  necessary  to  make  the  percentages 
in  the  tables  exact  to  a  small  fraction  of  one  per  cent.  Accord- 
ingly their  sums  sometimes  slightly  exceed  or  fall  below  a 
hundred. 


Is  i?i  Poetry.  g 

Catullus,  however,  we  find  an  important  change.  His 
complete  works  give  us: 

hie     ille     ipse      is      idem  iste 

39    251^     15^     12?^    41^    2U 

with  which  cf.  Csesar     20      9^14        50  ^6  }i 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  Catullus  is  occupies  the 
fourth  rank,  being  less  frequently  used  than  either 
hie,  ille  or  ipse.  The  Aratea,  a  translation  made  by 
Cicero  in  his  earlier  years,  although  antedating  Catul- 
lus, shows  a  much  stricter  avoidance  of  the  word.  In 
the  fairly  extensive  fragments  of  the  Aratea  (about 
550  lines)  that  have  come  down  to  us,  is  is  met  with 
only  three  times:  verse  250  (is),  frag.  XV  (eius), 
verse  315  (eum);  while  in  Catullus  (about  2000  verses, 
many  of  them  much  shorter  than  Cicero's  hexameters) 
it  occurs  42  times.  This  apparent  inconsistency  in 
the  usage  of  Cicero  and  Catullus  disappears,  however, 
when  we  distinguish  between  the  latter 's  "Nugae"  and 
his  longer  poems  in  hexameters  (No.  62  Uesper  adest 
and  No.  64  Epithalamium  Pelei).  These  two  poems, 
which  make  up  about  one-fourth  of  the  Catullus-cor- 
pus show  but  a  single  instance  of  is  (64,122),  since 
the  word  eius  is  unquestionably  corrupt  in  v.  109  of 
the  Epithalamium. 

Having  thus  determined  the  date  at  which  is  be- 
gins to  be  less  frequently  used  in  poetry,  we  may  now 
proceed  to  distinguish  the  various  branches  of  poetry 
and  to  set  forth  in  tabular  form  the  whole  number  of 
occurrences  of  the  determinative  pronoun  in  (a)  satire, 
(b)  didactic  epos,  (c)  elegy,  (d)  historical  and  heroic 
epos,  (e)  ode. 


lO 


The  Latin  Pronouns. 


SATIRE  (with  related  branches). 
Horace,!  Sat.  and  Epist.  31  instances  to  ca.  4000  verses,  or  i  to    130  vv. 


Persius 

6 

' 475 

i( 

I   " 

80 

Juvenal 

4 

3800 

It 

I  " 

950 

Martial 

5 

"    "     8600       " 

«i 

I  " 

1720 

DIDACTIC  EPOS. 

Cicero,  Aratea 

3  instances  to  ca.   550   verses,  or 

I  i 

nst. 

0     180VV 

Virgil,  Georgica 

9 

"    "     2200      " 

" 

'      245 

Manilius 

24 

"            "    "     4200      " 

It  • 

"      170 

Germanicus 

I 

950       " 

tt 

'     950 

Epos  Aetna 

I 

654       " 

" 

'    654 

Grattius,  Cynegetica 

2 

"    "     540       " 

" 

'    270 

Serenus  Sammonicus 

I 

"      "       IIOO        " 

" 

'     HOC 

Nemesianus 

2 

"    "     672       " 

" 

'  336 

Auianus,  Fabulae 

2 

654       " 

tt 

'  327 

EIvEGY  and  IDYL. 

Virgil,  Bucolica 

2 

inst.  to  ca.  800  verses,  or 

I  inst.  to  400 

Tibullus 

5 

"      "    "    1900 

'  380 

Lygd.  and  Panegyr.  2 

"      "    "    400 

'   200 

Sulpicia 

I 

"      "    "    300 

'  300 

Propertius* 

13 

"     "    "    4100 

'  315 

Ovid,  Amores 

2 

"      "    "    2450 

'  1225 

"      Tristia,  Pont 

.  66 

"      "    "    6250 

'    95 

Statins,  Siluae 

6 

"      "    "    3900 

'    650 

Calpurnius 

I 

"      "    "    760 

'    760 

EPOS 

(historical  and  heroic). 

Aeneid 

I   instance  to 

ca. 

125 

verses 

Ovid,  Metamorphoses 

165 

Lucan,  Pharsalia 

133c 

) 

Valerius  Flaccus 

220 

Statins,  Thebais 

320 

Statins,  Achilleis 

1125 

> 

Silius,  Pnnica,  B'ks  i-ioand  17     i          ' 

190 

Ilias  Latina 

I 

500 

Dracontins,  Carm. 

Profana              i          ' 

600 

Clandianns 

I 

500c 

> 

^In  the  same  lines  hie  occures  350  times. 

^Propertius  2,24,51  is  now  read  Hi  or  Ni  instead  of  li. 


Is  in  Poetry.  H 

It  might  at  first  thought  seem  to  the  reader  that 
the  number  of  occurrences  of  is  in  Ovid's  Ex  Ponto 
and  Tristia  is  too  large  to  warrant  the  assertion  that 
the  poet  avoided  the  pronoun.  The  relative  smallness 
of  this  number,  however,  is  apparent  at  a  glance,  when 
we  note  that  on  an  equal  number  of  pages  of  Caesar 
the  pronoun  occurs  about  800  times. 

The  following  are  the  precise  references  to  the 
passages  in  which  is  occurs,  only,  however,  for  those 
authors  who  employ  the  word  but  a  small  number  of 
times: 

Persius  6,16  ob  id.  3,95  quidquid  id  est.  6,65  quid- 
quid  id  est.   2,71  id.  3,48  id.  5,97  id  quod. 

Juvenal  3,182  id  uitium.  6,413  id  uitium.  7,162 
quidquid  id  est.   10,183  id. 

Martial  2,30,5.  7,31,12.  14,145,1;  in  all  three  cases 
is  or  id  at  the  beginning  of  a  line.  3,1,1.  6,68,11;  in 
both  instances  the  formula  quidquid  id  est.  In  addi- 
tion to  these  passages  it  occurs  twice  in  the  prose  intro- 
ductions. Friedltinder's  index  is  misleading,  since  it 
cites  only  two  examples. 

Virgil,  Georgica  1,432  is.  2,239  eS.  263  id.  3,252 
eos.  289  eS,.  510  eft.  4,89  eum.  334  eam.  430  eum, 

Germanicus,  Phaenomena  32  eas. 

Aetna  253  ea. 

Gratius  224  eius.  363  id. 

Serenus  Sammonicus  1095  id. 

Nemesianus,  Cynegetica  212  quicquid  id  est.  298  id. 

Avianus  2,2  eam.  20,5  is.   {yaria  lectio  40,4). 

Virgil,  Bucolica  3,35  id  quod.  9,37  id  quidem. 

Tibullus  1,2,39 f  is  <^/.y.  6,25  eius.  10,66  is.  2,3,33 
(36)  quisquis  is  es. 


12  The  Latiii  Prv7iou?is. 

Lygdanius  3,4,94  Isque.  6,12  eum. 

Sulpicia  4,7,8  id. 

Ovid,  Amores  3,4,3  ea.   15,5  Si  quid  id  est. 

Statius,  Siluae  1,4,5363.  6,49  quisquis  is  est.  5, 
1,219  Is.  5,65  Quisquis  is  est.  In  verse  1,2,180  ea  is 
a  conjecture  of  Biihrens  for  et,  and,  like  Uerum  id,  at 
(for  uerum  erat)  5,5,49,  is  not  accepted  by  Vollmer. 

Calpurnius,  Eel.  4,12  Qnidquid  id  est. 

IvUcan  1,171  is.  2,726  Non  ea.  3,611  earn.  4,546 
eum.  7,4o6(eo=propterea).  10,265  non  id  {uaria  lec- 
tio ita).  The  poorer  MSS.  show  forms  of  is  in  3,228. 
6,733.  828.  9,538.  1062.  The  passages  in  the  sixth, 
seventh  and  tenth  books  are  overlooked  by  Ober- 
nieier,  /.  c. 

Statius,  Achilleis  i,8ii(  =  2,i37)  Is 

Ilias  Latina  22  eius.  640  idque. 

Dracontius  5,271  Id  quod.  6,57  Uix  ea  fatus  eram. 

ClaudianusXXXIII(=Proserp.  1,117).  XXVIII, 
558. 

To  these  tables  might  have  been  added  the  Disticha 
Catonis  and  the  Carmina  De  Figuris  and  De  Ponderi- 
bus.  These  show  one  instance  of  is  to  every  thirty- 
five  to  seventy  lines,  a  frequency  easily  accounted  for 
by  the  prosaic  character  of  the  subject  matter  and  the 
carelessness  of  metrical  treatment.  In  Corippus  it  is 
rarely  used  (examples:  loan.  2,326  ea;  6,255  Uix  ea; 
8,33;  127  Uix  ea;  I^aud.  lust.  1,79).  The  same  is  true 
of  Cyprian's  Heptatuch  (Genesis  1039  Is  qui;  1347  Id; 
Deuteronomy  57(953)  id).  In  view  of  the  strictness 
with  which  Cyprian  avoided  this  word  one  should 
hesitate  long  before  accepting  Mayor's  conjecture  of 
is  qui  for  ille  qui  Deuteronomy  124.  5(  =  i04of).     In 


Is  ^V^  Poetry.  13 

the  poetical  portions  of  Boethius,  De  Consolatioiie 
Phil,  it  does  not  occur.  On  the  avoidance  of  the  word 
by  the  Satirists  see  Sorn,  Der  Sprachgebrauch  des  Eu- 
tropius,  11,4.     For  Commodian  see  below. 

The  discrepancy  between  Ovid's  Amores  and  his 
Tristia  is  perhaps  to  be  explained  by  the  circumstance 
that  the  former  were  written  at  Rome  at  the  beginning 
of  his  career,  at  a  time  when  he  was  strongly  under 
the  influence  of  his  early  rhetorical  training,  the  latter 
in  exile  in  his  later  years,  at  a  time  when  his  style  was 
less  careful.  In  putting  forward  this  explanation, 
however,  we  must  not  fail  to  remember  that  the  Meta- 
morphoses, which  is  the  last  poem  Ovid  wrote  before 
his  exile,  shows  a  comparatively  frequent  use  of  the 
determinative. 

Before  inquiring  in  detail  what  the  above  tables 
teach  us  concerning  the  use  of  this  pronoun  in  the 
poets,  it  remains  only  for  me  to  point  out  the  strik- 
ing contrast  between  the  usage  of  the  early  poets 
•discussed  above  (p.  8)  and  typical  later  poets.  This 
contrast  is  clearly  brought  out  by  the  following  table: 


hie 

is 

ille 

ipse 

iste 

idem 

Tragicorum  frag. 

33 

30 

16 

10 

6 

5 

Comicorum  frag. 

42 

25 

20 

4 

7 

2 

Catullus 

39 

12 

25 

15 

2 

6 

Virgil,  Aen.  Ill 

49 

5 

23 

14 

3 

5 

Silius,  Bks.  VIII  and  IX 

58 

3 

20% 

12 

I 

5-X 

Lucan,  Bks.  II  and  III 

60K 

I 

19 

13 

3 

27^ 

Ivet  us  now  see  what  the  abo\-e  tables  teach  with 
reference  to  the  attitude  of  the  poets  toward  this 
pronoun. 


14  The  Latiti  Pronouns. 

If  the  suggestions  of  Bentley  and  Grosrau  cited 
above  are  true  {^cf.  the  words  "epici  carminis  maiesta- 
tem — inquinaret" — "hoheren  Stiles" — "keine  eigent- 
liche  Bedeutung' ' )  >  we  must  in  order  to  be  consistent 
in  detail,  assume  that  the  higher  forms  of  poetry  should 
be  stricter  in  their  avoidance  of  the  word  than  those 
branches  which  do  not  rise  so  lofty  above  the  sermo 
pedestris.  Such  a  condition  of  affairs  is  precisely  what 
we  find  reflected  very  clearly  in  the  detailed  table  for 
Catullus  above.  We  likewise  find  the  determinative 
all  but  banished  from  Horace's  Odes,  while  it  is  far 
less  rigidly  excluded  from  the  Epistles  and  the  Satires, 
as  the  two  passages  above  mentioned  are  the  only  ones 
in  the  Odes  in  which  is  occurs.  But,  since  the  usage 
found  in  the  works  of  Ennius  (see  below  page  i6) 
is  slightly  different,  the  evidence  of  such  a  distinction 
is  limited  to  these  two  instances.  Virgil  employs  it 
more  rarely  in  his  Georgics  than  in  the  Aeneid,  though 
on  the  general  theory  we  should  expect  the  contrary. 
Juvenal  in  his  Satires  is  much  more  sparing  of  is  than 
the  writers  of  the  heroic  epos.  Statins  and  Valerius 
Flaccus,  while  Martial,  the  writer  of  epigrams,  avoids 
the  word  more  strictly  than  any  other  Roman  poet 
except  Claudian  and  Boethius.  In  fact  each  of  the 
branches  distinguished  above  shows  great  variety 
within  itself.  The  average  number  of  lines  corre- 
sponding to  each  occurrence  of  is  varies  in   the 

Satire,  etc.  from  80  to  1720 

Didactic  Epos  from  170  to  11 00 

Elegy  and  Idyl  from  95  to  1200 

Heroic  and  Hist.  Epos  from  125  to  1300' 

^  If  we  include  Claudian,  5000. 


Is  in  Poetry.  15 

Any  attempt  to  establish  a  general  canon  based  on  the 
distinction  of  genera  is  therefore  seen  to  be  futile. 
If  we  disregard  the  genera  and  undertake  to  determine 
some  principle  based  on  chronology,  we  shall  likewise 
be  unsuccessful  in  discovering  a  regularly  operating 
principle.  However,  in  general,  it  is  perfectly  clear 
that  the  post-Augustan  poets  and  especially  the  later 
writers,  are  much  more  strict  in  the  exclusion  of  the 
pronoun  than  the  Augustan.  Compare,  e.g.,  Martial 
(i  X  1720)'  with  Horace  (i  X  130);  Statins,  Silvae  (i  X 
650)  with  Tibullus  (i  X380),  with  Propertius  (i  X320) 
or  with  Virgil's  Bucolics  (1X400);  lyucan  (1X1430) 
with  Ovid's  Metamorphoses  (i  X  165);  and  Dracontius 
(1X1200)  with  Virgil's  Aeneid  (1X125).  In  other 
words,  the  rule  of  composition,  for  such  we  must  call 
it,  was  more  strictly  applied  as  time  went  on,  and  as 
originality  played  an  increasingly  less  prominent  part 
in  Roman  literature.  We  shall  be  impressed  with  the 
comparative  rarity  of  is  in  poetry,  when  we  consider 
that  Caesar  alone  has  over  two  thousand  instances  of  is, 
even  omitting  the  forms  hi  and  his,  which  in  a  large 
number  of  cases  undoubtedly  represent  original  ii  and 
lis  or  eis,  against  Horace's  34  and  Virgil's  75. 

An  examination  of  the  usage  of  the  poets  with  a 
view  to  determining  whether  they  observed  any  dis- 
tinction in  the  use  of  the  special  cases  reveals  some 
striking  facts.  Certain  forms  of  is  are  rigidly  avoided, 
while  for  others  a  strongly  marked  preference  is  shown. 
This  preference  for  certain  cases  is  seen  in  some  writ- 
ers long  before  any  tendency  to  avoid  the  word  as  a 
whole  is  observable.     Ennius  for  example,  if  we  are 

^  /.  e.,  one  instance  in  1720  verses. 


1 6  The  Latin  Pt'07202ms. 

justified  in  making  deductions  from  the  somewhat 
limited  number  of  extant  fragments  of  his  works,  ob- 
serves a  careful  distinction  in  the  use  of  the  forms  of 
is,  as  employed  in  his  Hexameters  on  the  one  hand  and 
in  his  Dramas,  the  tone  of  which  approaches  that  of 
the  vernacular,  on  the  other.  In  the  fragments  of  the 
Annals  (600  verses)  only  the  forms  is,  ea  and  eos  and 
the  monosyllabic  forms  sam,  sas,  sos,  sum  occur,  there 
being  in  all  fifteen  instances.  In  the  Satires  (86 
verses)  only  is  occurs  (four  times).  In  the  Fabulae 
the  word  occurs  about  as  often  as  in  the  Annals,  but 
with  this  marked  difference:  the  form  is  is  used  only 
once,  ea  only  once,  id  four  times,  while  the  forms  ei, 
eum,  eo,  eis,  entirely  excluded  from  the  Annals,  occur 
seven  times,  the  forms  with  the  initial  sibilant  being 
entirely  rejected.  The  facts  are  most  evident  in  tabu- 
lated form  (based  on  L,.  Miiller's  edition,  1884): 

Ann.  Sat.  Fab. 

Monosyllabic  forms  and  ea  18  7 

Other  forms  i  (eos)  7 

In  view  of  the  somewhat  scanty  fragments  of  En- 
nius  one  might  be  tempted  to  regard  the  above  men- 
tioned conditions  as  a  result  of  chance,  did  he  not 
find  them  strikingly  confirmed  by  the  usage  of  the 
later  poets.  To  make  this  clearer  we  here  insert  a 
tabulated  statement  of  the  relative  frequenc)^  of  the 
cases  of  is  in  the  Augustan  and  post- Augustan  poets 
mentioned  in  the  above  tables  with  the  exception  of 
the  Tibullus-corpus,  Propertius,  Horace  and  Manilius, 
who  are  not  so  rigid  in  the  exclusion  of  the  oblique 
cases,  and  with  the  addition  of  Ennius'   Annals,   Ca- 


Is  171  Poetry.  17 

tonis  Disticha,  the  Carmina  de  Figuris,  de  Ponderibus 
and  de  VII  Planetibus,  Namatianiis  and  Priscian's 
Periegesis.  For  the  sake  of  comparison  with  a  stan- 
dard prose- writer  we  adjoin  in  a  parallel  series  the 
figures  giving  the  relative  frequency  in  Caesar.  Num- 
ber of  instances: 


is  (sam,  etc.)     ea 

id 

eum,  earn 

60,  ea 

eos,  eas 

other 
forms 

total 

Caesar 

50             90 

175 

245 

360 

185 

940 

2045 

Poets 

104            150 

112 

22 

15 

5 

2 

410 

For  Caesar  the  occurrences  are  stated  in  round  num- 
bers and  include  the  Pseudo-Caesarian  Bell.  Alex., 
Bell.  Afr.,  and  Bell.  Hisp.  The  two  isolated  cases  in 
the  poets  are  eius  from  Ovid,  Ex  Ponto  4,15,6  (omit- 
ted in  Heinze's  text)  and  Ilias  Latina  2,2.  The  above 
figures  yield  the  following  percentages: 

Caesar  2%  ^Vz  Sj4  12  17^  9  46  100 
Plautus      15  5%    30        igj^     7        3^    19^    100 

Poets         251^    361^    27^      5^     3>^    i^       ^   100 

In  this  table  Plautus  is  represented  only  by  the  four 
plays  tabulated  above.  The  forms  eius  and  ei  (Dative) 
make  up  seventeen  per  cent,  of  the  nineteen  and  one- 
half  per  cent,  in  the  last  column  but  one.  If  we  now 
include  in  the  poets  the  totals  for  the  Tibullus-corpus, 
Propertius,  Horace  and  Gratius,  the  proportions  re- 
main still  not  very  materially  altered: 

other 
is  ea  id  eu(a)ra       eo(a)     forms 

Occurrences:  118  152  144  36  22  20  492 
Percentages:        24       31       29^       7^^      4^      4     100 

We  observed  above  that  the  determinative  as  a  whole 
is  avoided  by  the  poets.      The  last  two  tables  show 


f 


1 8  The  Lati7i  Proriouns. 

that  in  the  handHng  of  the  special  cases  also  careful 
discrimination  was  made. 

Certain  forms  of  is  have  entirely  disappeared, 
others  are  rarely  used,  while  still  others  have  become 
decidedly  less  frequent  than  in  prose.  On  the  other 
hand  a  marked  preference  is  shown  for  the  monosyl- 
labic forms  is  and  id  and  for  the  pyrrhic  ea.  With 
these  three  forms  the  poets  have  in  fact  developed  a 
number  of  formulae  that  find  frequent  employment. 
Among  the  more  common  of  these  may  be  mentioned: 
I  2  isque,  idque.  Ennius,  Lucretius,  Tibullus, 
Virgil,  Ovid,  Statins,  Silius. 

3  atque  is.     Statius,  Silius. 

4  atque   ea.       lyUcretius,    Virgil,    Ovid,    Statius, 

Silius. 

5  uix  ea  (often  followed  by  fatus  erat) .     Virgil, 

Ovid,  Statius,  Dracontius. 

6  dumque  ea.     Statius,  Silius. 

7  quidquid  id  (is)  est  (es).     Lucretius,  Tibullus, 

Virgil,    Statius,    Nemesianus,    Avianus,    Cal- 

purnius. 
Of  these  nos.  1,2,5,6  are  of  quite  frequent  occurrence, 
there  being  nearly  one  hundred  instances  in  all.  None 
of  them,  however,  are  found  in  Lucan.  The  form  eS, 
shares  with  other  pyrrhic  words  the  peculiarity  of 
often  filling  the  last  two  short  syllables  of  the  fourth 
foot  of  the  hexameter.  Thus  is  formed  the  cadence 
v..w_^^_^  so  common  in  our  epics.  Examples  are: 
Virgil,  Aen.  2,17  ea  fama  uagatur;  3,505  ea  cura  nepo- 
tes;  660  ea  sola  uoluptas;  4,379  ea  cura  quietos;  2,123 
ea  numina  diuom;  3,100  ea  moenia  quaerunt;  12,216 
ea  pugna  uideri;  Ovid,  Met.  6,154  ea  cuncta  placerent; 


^<i 


Is  in  Poetry.  19 

8,123  ea  fabula:  uerus;  15,64  ea  pectoris  haiisit,  etc., 
etc.;  Statius,  Tliebais  2,73;  4,242;  Valerius  Flaccus 
3,223;  455;  4,144;  6,18;   7,108;  8,43. 

Compare  with  this  peculiarity  the  observation  made 
by  Edwards,  The  Ablative  of  Quality  and  the  Geni- 
tive of  Qualit}^  in  I^atin,  New  York,  1900,  p.  39,  that 
the  Ablative  of  quality  corpore  stands  nearly  alwaj^s 
in  the  fifth  foot  of  the  hexameter,  because  of  the  im- 
possibility in  many  instances  of  employing  the  Geni- 
tive in  this  position.  Whatever  may  have  been  the 
reason  or  reasons  that  led  the  poets  to  distinguish  be- 
tween the  Ablative  and  the  Genitive  construction,^  the 


1  It  is  evadent  that  the  choice  between  these  two  construc- 
tions, if  determined  simply  by  the  technique  of  prosody,  must 
depend,  in  Virgil  and  the  later  writers  at  least,  upon  the  charac- 
ter (vocalic  or  consonantal)  of  the  initial  vowel  of  the  following 
word.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  Lucretius  1,1-300  the  dissyllabic 
words  with  initial  consonant  that  follow  a  dactylic  word  in  the 
fifth  foot  of  the  hexameter  are  about  three  times  as  frequent  as 
the  words  with  initial  vowels  in  the  same  position  (in  Virgil  i, 
1-300  the  proportion  is  about  two  of  the  former  to  one  of  the 
latter).  There  would  accordingly  be  more  opportunity  on  an 
average  to  employ  the  Ablative,  if  the  choice  were  deter»iined 
tnerely  by  the  character  of  the  following  word.  Is  it  not  more 
likely  that  the  reverse  would  be  the  case,  and  that  the  character 
of  the  final  dissyllable  would  be  determined  by  the  use  of  the 
Ablative  or  the  Genitive  in  the  fifth  foot  ?  Or,  if  Lucretius  was 
forced  to  use  a  word  like  posse  in  the  sixth  foot,  would  he  have 
found  any  difficulty  in  writing  1,488  solidi  reperiri  corpori ' 
posse  ? 

Since  writing  the  above,  I  have  laid  this  question  before  Dr. 
Edwards,  who  agrees  with  me  that  Lucretius  was  not  constrained 
by  the  metre  to  write  corpore,  referring  to  2,53  rationi'  potestas 
and  2,623  numini'  diuae.  He  urges,  however,  and  rightly 
enough,  that  the  influence  of  Lucretius,  and  particularly  of  Vir- 
gil, on  subsequent  usage  must  have  been  great. 


20  77^1?  Latin  Pronouns. 

appearance  of  the  word  corpore  so  often  in  the  fifth 
foot  is  easy  of  explanation.  In  the  I^atin  hexameters 
a  dactylic  word  often  forms  the  fifth  foot  (about  230 
cases  in  lyUcretius  i ,  1-300,  Virgil  i ,  1-300  and  Juvenal, 
Satire  i),  less  frequently  in  the  first  foot  (about  80 
cases  in  the  same  lines)  seldom  in  the  fourth  (12 
cases)  and  very  rarely  in  the  second  and  third  (no 
cases) .  It  is  a  question  then  of  the  diaeresis  and  the 
penthemimeral  caesura.  Applying  these  conditions  to 
the  pronoun  is,  we  may  readily  conjecture  that,  if  no 
elision  takes  place  (elision  occurs  very  rarely;  so  Ovid 
Met.  2,785  and  Silius  7,160 — In  both  cases  it  also 
precedes  the  diaresis) ,  the  form  ea  will  stand  only  in 
a  foot  that  is  followed  by  the  diaeresis,  i.  e.,  in  the 
fifth,  fourth  and  first  often,  in  the  third  less  fre- 
quently, in  the  second  very  rarely.  What  we  actually 
find  is  that  out  of  86  instances  of  ea  48  fall  in  the  first 
foot,  28  in  the  fourth  foot,  8  in  the  third  and  2  in  the 
second.  The  excess  of  the  occurrences  in  the  first 
foot  over  those  in  the  fourth  (we  might  have  expected 
the  reverse)  is  accounted  for  by  the  frequent  use  of  is 
as  a  correlative.  Thus  out  of  the  201  passages  in 
which  various  forms  of  is  occur  in  Ennius,  the  Tibul- 
lus-corpus,  Propertius,  Virgil,  Ovid,  Lucan,  Statins 
and  Silius,  118  fall  to  the  first  foot,  34  to  the  fourth,  25 
to  the  second,  19  to  the  third,  5  to  the  fifth  and  none  to 
the  sixth.  This  also  explains  the  absence  of  is  from 
the  sixth  foot  and  its  infrequent  appearance  in  the 
fifth. 

In  addition  to  the  cases  of  is  counted  in  the  com- 
parison drawn  between  Caesar  and  the  poets  the  fol- 
lowing instances  occur  in  metrical  inscriptions: 


Is  in  Poetry.  21 

id:  Biicheler,  Carm.  Epigraph.,  nos.  767;  995,26; 
1009  Quicquid  id  est;  1031;  1258  Idque  (=  C. 
I.  ly.  XII, 2098;  VI, 12652;  XI, 1273  (ex  sche- 
dis);  VI, 6592;  23004);  Hiibner,  Inscriptiones 
Hispaniae  Christianae  ex  Zamorae  schedis. 
eius:  B.  765  (=  C.  I.  Iv.  XII, 2143). 
ei  (dat.):    B.   489  (monosyllabic);    492    (iambic) 

(=  C.  I.  Iv.  111,10501;  754). 
eo  (foreum):  B.  474  (=  Ephem.  Epigraph.   IV, 

p.  346,  no.  936). 
ea:  B.  774  (=  C.  I.  I..  VIII,684). 
Taking  up  the  forms  in  detail,  we  may  now  observ^e 
that  the  forms  is  and  ea  are  among  those  less  fre- 
quently found  in  prose.  This  is  also  true  of  id,  but 
the  contrast  between  the  prose  usage  and  that  of  the 
poets  is  not  so  marked  in  the  case  of  this  form.  Most 
striking  of  all  is  the  almost  entire  absence  of  eius  in 
the  poets,  which  is  used  by  the  prose  writers  more 
frequently  than  any  other  form,  occurring,  for  exam- 
ple, in  Caesar  upwards  of  three  hundred  times. 
It  is  fairly  common  in  Lucretius  (55  times  in  books 
1-3;  6)  and  Manilius  (12  times),  who  often  employ 
it  to  fill  {he  last  foot  of  the  hexameter.  The  only 
other  poets  of  those  cited  in  the  above  tables,  who 
use  it  are:  Catullus  84,5;  Tibullus  1,6,25;  Propertius 
4,2,35;  4,6,67;  Horace,  Satires  2,1,70;  6,76;  Ovid, 
Trist.  3,4,27;  ex  Ponto  4,15,6  (some  manuscripts 
have  huius — In  Met.  8,16  eius  is  a  questionable  read- 
ing); Gratius  224.  From  this  count  the  ante-classi- 
cal poets  and  Commodian  are  also  omitted.  The  latter 
shows  marked  peculiarities  in  his  use  of  the  word,  as 
in  his  metrics  in  general.     He  uses  is,  however,  spar- 


22  The  Lati?i  Pronouns. 

ingly,  showing  the  forms:  is  4  times,  ea  6  times,  eius 
3  times,  eo  12,  earum  5,  eos  6,  eis  3.  Entirely  miss- 
ing from  the  poets  are  ii(ei)  Nom.  pi.,  eae  and  eis. 
Omitting  Commodian  and  the  inscriptions  mentioned, 
earum  occurs  only  in  Catullus  63,54;  Horace,  Sat. 
2,8,92;  eorumonly  in  Horace,  Sat.  1,4,80;  eos  only  Pro- 
pertius  2,21,7;  Horace,  Epist.  2,1,67;  Virgil,  Georg. 
3,252;  Aen.  1,413;  Carmen  de  Pond.  72;  eas  Horace, 
Sat.  1,10,14;  ei  (dat.)  only  Catullus  82,3;  Ovid,  Hal. 
34.  It  is  also  worthy  of  comment  that  only  the  in- 
stance in  the  Carmen  de  Ponderibus  and  those  in  the 
inscriptions  fall  later  than  the  Augustan  age.  This 
clearly  shows  not  only  that  the  later  writers  in  metre 
avoided  the  word  as  a  whole,  but  also  that  they  were 
more  rigid  in  the  exclusion  of  the  oblique  cases  just 
enumerated.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  the  entire  post- 
Virgilian  literature  under  discussion  there  are  only 
five  cases  of  eum,  five  of  eo,  one  of  eius,  two  of  ei. 
Three  of  these  fall  to  L'Ucan. 

Considerable  light  is  thrown  upon  the  reasons  for 
this  attitude  of  the  poets  by  the  explanations  of  WOlff- 
lin- Header  in  the  Archiv  fiir  lateinische  lyexiko- 
graphie  und  Grammatik  XI, 373  ff: 

i)  'The  nominative  forms  ii,  ei,  eae  were  indis- 
tinguishable in  pronunciation,  and  hence  in  metrical 
value,  from  the  Dative  and  from  the  Nominatives  hi 
and  hae.  The  poets'  ears  could  hardly  have  felt  the 
combination  of  sounds  eae  as  an  objectionable  caco- 
phony, since  they  frequently  admit  such  forms  as 
meae,  deae,  etc.  lis  was  avoided  for  the  same  reasons 
as  ii.' 

This  point  suggests  one  of  the  most  interesting  as 


Is  in  Poetry.  23 

well  as  most  important  problems  of  textual  criticism. 
The  questions  involved  are  a)  at  what  time  was  the 
phonetic  identity  of  ii  and  hi,  eae  and  hae,  iis  and  his 
(hiis  also  occurs)  an  accomplished  fact  ?  b)  how  far 
has  this  confusion  operated  at  a  later  date  to  cause 
corruption  in  the  manuscripts  of  the  earlier  writers  ? 
Weissbrodt,  De  usu  pronominum  is  et  hie  quaestio, 
Progr.  Bromberg,  1878,79  has  shown  quite  clearly  that 
this  confusion  could  scarcely  have  become  general 
before  the  end  of  the  second  century  A.  D.,  although 
isolated  cases  of  hi  for  ii  and  of  his  for  iis  are  found 
much  earlier.  In  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  this 
confusion  was  very  common,  if  not  universal.  The 
attempt  of  Hans  Ziegel,  De  is  et  hie  pronominibus 
quatenus  confusa  sint  apud  antiquos,  Marburg,  1897, 
to  bring  order  into  the  chaos  must  be  regarded  as  a 
distinct  advance.  He  endeavors  to  prove  by  the  colla- 
tion of  certain  manuscripts,  that  an  unknown  gram- 
marian of  the  fourth  or  fifth  century  established  some 
rules  for  the  guidance  of  authors  or  scribes  in  the 
choice  between  the  two  sets  of  forms.  Still  his  results 
cannot  be  accepted  until  they  receive  confirmation  by 
the  consultation  of  other  manuscripts.  If  the  question 
were  one  of  orthography  and  phonetics  only,  it  would 
be  comparatively  simple.  It  is,  however,  complicated 
by  considerations  of  semasiology.  The  weakening  of 
the  force  of  hie,  which  will  be  treated  in  the  following 
chapter,  had  in  the  classical  period  so  far  advanced  as 
to  render  the  interchange  of  the  two  words  no  uncom- 
mon occurrence.  We  may  therefore  not  unreasonably 
inquire,  whether  the  writers,  though  perfectly  aware 
of  the  orthographical,  phonetic  and  semasiological  dis- 


24  The  Latin  Pronotins. 

tinctions  (however  slight)  between  the  two  words, 
nevertheless  deliberately  chose  his  and  hi  in  preference 
to  iis  and  ii.  One  circumstance,  which,  so  far  as  I 
am  aware,  has  never  been  noted,  is  of  great  weight:  in 
sentences  of  the  type  of  Quint.  9,2,1  nam  mihi  de  his 
sententiarum  figuris  dicere  in  animo  est,  quae  ab  illo 
simplici  modo  indicandi  recedunt,  other  forms  than  his 
and  hi  are  of  the  rarest  occurrence,  while  these  two 
forms  are  quite  frequently  met  with  (Compare,  e.  g., 
the  readings  in  Cato,  De  Agricultura  1,4;  18,6;  52,1; 
66,2;  149,2;  158,2).  We  feel  called  upon  to  lay  con- 
siderable stress  upon  this  fact  in  view  of  the  surprising 
persistency  with  which  modern  writers  on  I^atin  gram- 
mar cite  instances  of  hi  and  his  to  prove  the  weaken- 
ing of  the  meaning  of  hie.  Very  few  writers  quote 
instances  of  any  other  form.  This  extraordinary  per- 
ponderance  of  the  two  forms  hi  and  his  would  be  more 
naturally  brought  about  by  manuscript  corruption 
than  by  semasiological  conditions  contemporary  with 
the  author,  since  such  conditions  would  be  likely  to 
affect  all  forms  alike  and  not  simply  the  two  just 
mentioned.  As  no  instance  of  iis  or  is  (for  iis)  occurs 
in  the  poets  mentioned  above  except  the  dramatists,  it 
is  very  difficult  to  say  whether  the  confusion  in  manu- 
script tradition  has  affected  their  works  as  well  as 
those  of  the  prose  writers.' 

2)  'The  Nominative  ei  was  coincident  in  form  with 
the  Dative  ei.' 

3)  'The  Dative  ei  varied  between  the  monosyllabic 
pronunciation  (lyUcilius  4,4o(Ei  coni.  M.);  7,27;  En- 
nius,  Fab.  204  (Miiller);  Catullus  82,3),  the  iambic 
(Ovid,  Hal.   34 — I^ucan  avoids  the   Dative  6,172  by 


Is  ill  Poetry.  25 

using  viro  [Obermeier,  /.  r.])  and  the  spondaic  (see 
Ritschl,  Opusc.  II,  419,  where  are  quoted  twenty-two 
examples  from  the  comedians  and  seven  from  Lucre- 
tius).' 

4)  'The  forms  eum,  eam,  eo,  ea,  eos,  eas  varied 
between  the  monosyllabic  and  the  dissyllabic  pronun- 
ciation, and  eorum,  earum  were  pronounced  with  and 
without  synezesis.' 

5)  'Kius  is  still  more  uncertain  in  its  pronuncia- 
tion. It  is  monosyllabic  (Cicero,  Arat.  apud  De  Nat. 
Deor.  2,109)  or  pyrrhic  under  the  republic  {cf.  Lach- 
mann  on  I^ucr.  pp.  27;  161),  while  the  normal  Augus- 
tan pronunciation  was  trochaic' 

'To  avoid  such  difficulties  the  poets  excluded  the 
forms  in  question  entirely  from  their  writings.'  On 
the  whole  subject  of  the  uncertainty  and  variety  in 
pronunciation  of  the  dissyllabic  and  trisyllabic  forms 
of  is  see  Biicheler,  Lateinische  Declination,  index  s.  vv. 

Positive  evidence  that  the  considerations  just  men- 
tioned played  a  part  in  determining  the  poet  to  avoid 
the  use  of  these  metrically  inconvenient  forms  of  is, 
is  found  in  the  similar  attitude  of  the  poets  toward 
idem.  The  evidence  collected  by  Biicheler,  op.  cit.  s. 
vv.  idem,  eadem,  etc.,  shows  that  we  have  no  reason 
for  supposing  that  the  confusion  in  pronunciation  of 
idem  was  any  less  than  that  of  the  determinative.  On 
the  contrary,  the  transference  of  the  accent  would  tend 
still  further  to  bring  about  the  disappearance  of  the 
initial  vowel  of  the  oblique  cases  (compare  the  form 
of  the  Nom.  masc,  sg.  and  pi.  Dat.-Abl.  pi.  idem  and 
isdem — the  normal  forms  employed  in  the  hexameter — 
with  the  uncompounded  ii,   eis,   iis,  rarely  or  never 

6 


26  The  Latin  Pro7ioicns. 

employed  by  the  poets) .  The  reduction  of  these  two 
forms  to  dissyllables  rendered  their  employment  in 
metrical  writings  possible,  or  at  least  unobjectionable; 
and  placed  them,  in  fact,  metrically  on  the  same  basis 
with  is  and  id.  Accordingly  we  frequently  find  them 
in  poetry,  while  ii  and  iis  are  absolutely  avoided.  This 
is  in  itself  sufl&cient  proof  that  the  difficulty  of  metri- 
cal treatment  was  the  chief  objection  to  the  two  simple 
forms.  In  Catullus,  TibuUus-corpus,  Propertius,  Hor- 
ace's Odes,  Ovid's  Ex  Ponto,  Martial  and  Juvenal  the 
following  forms  of  idem  occur,  if  we  may  trust  the 
indices:  idem  Nom.  sg.  and  pi.  72  times;  eadem  Nom. 
sg.  pi.  and  Ace.  pi.,  38;  isdem  Dat.-Abl.  pi.  7  times; 
other  forms,  13  (10  in  Ovid  and  Juvenal.).  Horace 
is  less  strict  in  the  use  of  idem,  precisely  as  he  is  less 
strict  in  the  exclusion  of  is  from  his  Satires  and  Epis- 
tles. I  have  no  doubt  that  the  examination  of  Virgil, 
Lucan,  Silius,  Statins  and  Valerius  Flaccus  would 
reveal  still  greater  caution  on  the  part  of  these  writ- 
ers in  the  use  of  idem. 

While  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  these  considera- 
tions have  played  an  important  part  in  determining 
the  exclusion  of  the  determinative  and  the  pronoun  of 
identity  from  poetrj^  we  must  not  overlook  other  con- 
siderations. It  was  a  true  feeling  for  the  language 
that  led  Dacier  to  remark  on  the  unpoetical  character 
of  is,  and  that  led  Bentley  (if  his  opinion  was  not 
formed  independently)  to  approve  his  judgment.  The 
determinative  does  express  in  most  cases  only  "for- 
melle  Beziehung,"  but  it  is  going  too  far  to  add,  as 
Grosrau  does,  that  the  word  "keine  eigentliche  Bedeut- 
ung  hat."     To  be  sure,  the  word  often  adds  so  little 


Is  in  Poetry.  27 

to  the  sentence  that  it  may  be  dropped  even  in  prose, 
yet  the  usage  of  the  poets  shows  that  here,  as  in  prose, 
the  word  often  has  a  more  or  less  strong  demonstrative 
force,  "he  and  no  other,"  sometimes  approaching  talis 
in  meaning  {cf.  S2ipra),  while,  vice  versa,  it  is  less  fre- 
quently used  as  a  simple  correlative  with  qui.  We 
occasionally  find  it  where  in  classical  prose  we  should 
expect  ille  or  hie. 

From  correspondence  with  Professor  Shorey,  of 
the  University  of  Chicago,  I  learn  that  the  same  feel- 
ing concerning  the  weakness  of  the  meaning  of  certain 
words  underlies  his  note  on  Horace  O.  4,2,33  and  the 
statement  found  on  p.  xix  of  the  Introduction  to  his 
edition  of  Horace's  I^yrics. 

This  discussion  would  be  incomplete  and  perhaps 
misleading,  if  we  should  omit  to  state  that  even  in 
prose  the  forms  ei  (ii)  Nom.  pi.  and  eae  are  extremely 
rare.  In  Caesar,  for  example,  the  two  combined  make 
up  only  lyi  percent,  of  the  entire  number  of  occur- 
rences of  the  determinative,  in  the  Rhetorica  ad 
Herennium  only  ifi  per  cent.,  in  Curtius  fz  per  cent., 
in  Florus  fz  per  cent.,  in  Apuleius  Yi  per  cent., 
while  they  are  entirely  absent  from  Fronto  B'ks. 
1-5.  Is  their  scarcity  due  to  their  disappearance 
(absorption)  into  the  forms  hi  and  hae,  or  to  disuse 
caused  by  a  weakening  of  meaning?  The  answer 
must  pend  the  solution  of  the  problem  stated  on  pages 
22  sq.  It  may  further  be  added  that  even  the  form 
hae  would  from  the  bare  fact  of  its  being  Nom.  pi. 
fem.  find  rather  infrequent  use  as  a  substantive  either 
in  prose  or  verse  (more  often  in  the  latter),  while  both 
hi  and  hae  would  often  be  understood  from  the  per- 


28  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

sonal  ending  of  the  verb  or  represented  by  the  relative 
qui,  quae.  The  form  id,  on  the  other  hand,  was 
largely  used  in  prose  as  well  as  in  poetry  (compare  the 
numerical  prominence  of  the  neuters  hoc  and  haec), 
yielding  in  the  Rhetorica  ad  Herennium  25^  per  cent, 
of  all  instances  of  the  determinative,  in  Florus  27,  and 
in  Fronto  (and  M.  Aurelius),  B'ks.   1-5,  29  per  cent. 

B.      /S"  IN   PROSE   LITERATURE. 

Although  the  prose  literature  of  the  Romans  does 
not  show  peculiarities  in  the  use  of  is  so  striking  as 
those  just  discussed,  yet  some  interesting  and  valuable 
facts  may  be  learned  from  observing  the  attitude  of 
the  prose  writers.  An  examination  of  the  monu- 
ments shows  that  is  is  less  and  less  frequently  em- 
ployed in  proportion  as  the  style  passes  from  the  cold 
and  unimpassioned  scientific  exposition  (legal  litera- 
ture, Cato,  De  Agr.,  etc.^  through  the  more  lively 
historical  narrative  into  the  impassioned  tone  of  ora- 
tory and  rhetorical  (declamatory)  prose  (Seneca).  In 
fact  it  is  par  excellence  the  pronoun  of  the  curial  style. 
In  all  our  preserved  laws,  formulae,  etc.,  hie  hardly 
appears  at  all.  When  it  does,  it  refers  with  few  excep- 
tions to  the  subject  matter  of  the  document  itself. 
Ille  occurs  previous  to  the  year  48  A.  D.  only  three 
times  in  Bruns'  Pontes.  The  passages  are:  lex  Cor- 
nelia de  XX  quaestoribus  (81  B.  C.)  1,  5  ollis  homini- 
bus  in  which  case  ollis  seems  to  have  the  force  peculiar 
to  formulae,  ' '  so  and  so  " ;  lex  a  vicanis  Furfensibus 
templo  dicta  (58  B.  C.)  1.  3  comulateis  olleis  legibus 
illeis  regionibus  (in  which  case  it  certainly  bears  the 
meaning  just  mentioned) — cf.   Hermes  VII,  p.   201, 


Is  in  Prose  Literature.  29 

where  the  style  of  this  provincial  document  is  dis- 
cussed. In  view  of  the  extreme  rarity  of  the  word, 
one  is  surprised  to  meet  with  it  in  the  Laws  of  the 
Twelve  Tables  10,8  ast  im  cum  illo  (z.  e.,  auro  quo 
iuncti  sunt  dentes)  sepeliet.  Aside  from  the  question 
as  to  how  much  the  text  of  the  laws  has  been  modern- 
ized, there  is  of  course  a  possibility  of  corruption  in 
the  manuscripts  of  Cicero,  where  the  passage  is  pre- 
served. If  the  text  is  sound,  the  demonstrative  may 
be  justified  by  the  contrast  between  the  gold  particu- 
larly mentioned  in  the  sentence  just  cited,  and  the 
general  prohibition  neue  aurum  addito.  Even  after 
the  date  above  mentioned  ille  appears  rarely  in  the 
laws.  In  the  S.  C.  Claudianum  (48  A.  D.),  which 
really  has  the  form  of  an  address  and  not  of  a  legal 
document,  ille  occurs  four  times.  In  the  carelessly 
written  decretum  proconsulis  Sardiniae  (79  A.  D.)  there 
is  an  example;  likewise  in  the  S.  C.  Macedonianum 
(69-79  A.  D.),  where  illi  stands  simply  for  ei;  in  the 
testamentum  Galli  (first  century);  in  the  testamentum 
Dasumii  (108  A.  D.);  in  the  lex  arae  lovis  Salaritanae 
(137  A.  D.),  in  which  occurs  the  above  cited  formula 
ollis  legibus  ollis  regionibus;  in  the  epistula  praefecto- 
rum  praetorio  (168  A.  D.),  where  illo  =  eo;  in  the  lis 
fullonum  de  pensione  solvendo  where  illud  quod  =  id 
quod;  in  the  gesta  de  aperiendo  testament©  (474  A.  D.), 
quod  ....  illud  =  quod  ....  id.  It  should  be  noted 
that  only  few  of  these  are  public  documents,  which 
keep  closer  to  the  classical  usage. 

Turning  now  to  the  writers  of  scientific  prose  we 
find  the  relative  frequency  of  the  six  pronouns  to  be 
as  follows: 


30  The  Latm  Pronouns. 

is        hie      ille     ipse     idem  iste 

%  %  %  %  fe  % 

Cato  59^     231^     3         2         II         I 

Vitruvius  64         22  Yd,     5^2       ^  Vi 

Gaius  64         15         4        8  81 

Dictys  Cretensis      70^      13         2j^     8^       454^        J^ 
Dares  Phrygius        72         11         7^^     67^       2%       y% 

In  the  first  three  cases  hi  and  his  are  counted  with  hie 
although  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  many  of  them 
should  fall  into  the  is-eolumn.  Owing  to  the  eon- 
fusion  between  ii  and  hi,  iis  and  his,  73  and  11  would 
probabl)^  be  a  more  exact  proportion  for  Dictys  Cre- 
tensis. In  the  case  of  Dares  those  instances  of  hi  and 
his  which  undoubtedly  represent  original  ii  and  iis  are 
included  in  the  72  per  cent.  The  last  two  writers  are 
added  not  as  scientific  writers,  but  because  their  per- 
centages approach  nearest  to  those  of  Cato,  etc.  They 
may  easily  have  used  the  pronoun  is  so  largely  in 
order  to  give  their  writings  a  flavor  of  antiquity. 
The  historians  in  their  employment  of  these  pro- 
nouns show  some  marked  differences: 


is 

hie 

ille 

ipse 

idem 

iste 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

Caesar 

50% 

20^ 

9'/^ 

14 

6 

H 

Curtius 

36 

21 

ieV2 

183/ 

7 

% 

Suetonius 

553/ 

18^ 

6V2 

14 

5/3 

/8 

Justin 

35 

22 

14^ 

16V3 

12 

Yz 

Victor 

50^ 

22 

9 

II 

7 

I 

The  pronouns  ille  and  ipse  are  decidedly  more  fre- 


Is  in  Prose  Literature.  31 

quent, — it  could  not  be  otherwise  in  historical  litera- 
ture,— while  is  has  decreased.  The  less  frequent 
employment  of  is  by  Curtius  and  Justin  could  be  easily 
accounted  for.  The  African  I^atinity  of  Florus  and 
his  poetical  coloring,  for  which  see  Archiv  f .  lat.  I^ex. 
u.  Gram.  VI, iff.  [Wolfflin],  removes  him  widely  from 
these.     He  shows: 

17         24         26         27^       51^        i^ 

With  him,  as  with  Catullus,  is  holds  the  fourth  place 
instead  of  the  first,  its  position  being  usurped  by  ille 
and  ipse.  He  represents  the  extreme  phase  of  a 
movement,  which  has  left  clear  traces  of  its  influence 
on  the  historical  and  particularly  on  the  patristic 
literature.  A  medial  position  is  occupied  by  the  f ol- 
io A?vdng  writers: 


is       hic 

ille 

ipse  idem 

iste 

%        % 

% 

%      7o 

fo 

Seneca  Rhetor 

13%     35>^ 

35 

6         3K 

6% 

Pliny,  Epistulae 

16        34 

23 

16         bYz 

4^ 

Macrobius,  Som.  Scip. 

16        47 

iiK 

15K  81^: 

2 

Boethius,  De  Consol. 

23>^     35K 

20K 

13       -iY?. 

^Yz 

The  facts  told  by  these  tables  require  no  comment. 
The  following  chapters  will  be  found  to  describe  in 
detail  the  semasiological  changes  that  explain,  to  a 
large  extent  at  least,  the  shifting  of  the  predominence 
in  usage  from  one  pronoun  to  another. 

Concerning  the  weakening  of  is  in  particular,  those 
interested  may  consult  Praun,  Bemerkungen  zur  Syn- 
tax des  Vitruv  p.  83;  Som,  Der  Sprachgebrauch  des 
Historikers  Kutropius,  part  II,  p.  3;  and  Hoppe,  Pro- 
gram, p.  8. 

I  can  cite  no  writer  in  whose  works  is  has  so  far 


32  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

been  replaced  by  hie,  ille  and  ipse  as  in  those  of  the 
grammarian  Pompeius.  In  his  writings  it  is  confined 
almost  entirely  to  certain  set  formulae  or  phrases.  As 
a  free  and  independent  word  it  is  nearly  extinct.  The 
following  table  is  based  on  the  first  io8  pages  of 
Keil's  edition  of  Pompeius. 

is       hie    ille    ipse  idem  iste  totals 
Number  of  instances: 
Caesar  and 

continuators       2.7312045     830     382     525  277         5 

749     304     140     189  loi         2     1485 

Pompeius                                24    425     430     235  35     335     1484 
Percentages: 

Csesar,  eic.                         50>^  20>^     9/^   14  (>       /i 
Pompeius                              i^  21%  28|^  17^^     2%  22 

The  conclusions  which  are  to  be  drawn  from  this 
table  are  to  be  found  in  chapter  III. 

In  reference  to  the  disappearance  of  the  individual 
forms  of  is,  little  is  to  be  said  be^^ond  the  remarks  on 
the  forms  ii,  iis,  eae  made  above.  It  is  well  known 
that  in  later  Latin  the  form  eum  (neuter)  made  on  the 
analogy  of  ipsum,  bellum,  etc.,  usurps  the  place  of  the 
form  id,  except  in  the  phrase  id  ipsum  (=  Italian 
desso)  and  probably  a  few  other  formulae.  Examples 
are  cited  by  Geyer,  Kritischeund  sprachliche  Erliiuter- 
ungen  zu  Antonini  Plac.  Itin.,  p.  41. 


CHAPTER  II.     HIC. 


CHAPTER  II.      HIC. 


A.      THE   RIVALRY   BETWEEN   HIC   AND   IS. 

The  encroachment  of  hie  on  the  province  of  is  is 
most  clearly  demonstrable  in  the  case  of  certain  short 
formulae  or  phrases,  in  which  the  neuter  Nominative, 
Accusative  or  Ablative  is  used  to  refer  not  to  some 
particular  word,  but  to  the  general  idea  of  the  follow- 
ing or  the  preceding  sentence  or  clause.  Such  phrases 
are  eo  (=  ideo,  propterea),  hoc  (=  ideo,  propterea), 
both  either  with  or  without  a  following  quia,  quod,  ut, 
ne,  etc,  eo  with  the  comparative,  hoc  with  the  com- 
parative; id  est,  hoc  est,  both  explanatory;  ad  id,  ad 
hoc  with  various  meanings;  ob  id,  ob  hoc;  postea, 
postidea,  (post  id,  post  eS,),  posthac  (post  hoc,  p.  haec — 
also  postilla  and  illS,);  eiusmodi,  huiusmodi;  and  lastly 
eo  consilio,  hoc  consilio,  the  last  two  not  being  fre- 
quently employed.  These  are  all  special  cases  under 
the  general  principle  stated  by  Kiihner,  I^at.  Gram., 
§  1x8,  2  Anm.  7  and  8  (=  vol.  II,  p.  455).  The  first 
five  pairs  form  the  subject  of  the  present  section. 

I.     Eo—ideo,  hoc— ideo. 

The  causal  use  of  these  two  Ablatives  is  fully 
developed  as  early  as  Plautus,  not  to  mention  the 
doubtful  passage  in  the  lex  XII  tabularum  2,2  morbus 
sonticus  ....  aut    dies    status    cum    hoste  ....  quid 


36  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

horum  fuit  uitium  iudici  reoue,  eo  dies  ||  die  ||  diffen- 
sus  II  diffissus,  Th.  Mommsen  ||  esto.  Examples  of 
hoc  =  idee  are: 

Pseud.  807 '  Ilium  {sc.   coquum)  conducunt  (homines) 
potius  qui  uilissumust. 

Hoc  ego  fui  liodie  solus  obsessor  fori; 
819  £E.  Ei  homines  cenas 

condiunt strigibus, 

conuiuis  intestina  quae  exedint. 

Hoc  hie  quidem    homines   tam   breuem  uitam 

colunt; 
Miles  850 

. .  .  .ego  promebam  postea, 
Hoc  illi  crebro  capite  sistebant  cadi; 

Hoc  is  here  a  probable  and  generally  accepted  con- 
jecture of  Brix  2d  ed.  for  the  MSS.  hie.     Cist.  3 19  if. 

Nam  hasce  aedis  conductas  habet  meus  gnatus, 

haec  ubi  astat.  [nominauit. 

Hoc  hanc  eam  esse  opiniost:    nam  haec  ilium 

I  cite  these  passages  in  full  since  they  are  the  only 
ones  known  to  me  in  Plautus.  Ussing  ad  Asin.  235 
(=  248  U)  saj^s  "hoc  =  ideo"  but  I  cannot  regard  the 
passage  as  an  indisputable  instance  of  the  construc- 
tion.    Sentences  of  the  type  Stich.  127 

Sed  hoc  est,  quod  ad  uos  uenio  quodque  esse 
ambas  conuentas  uolo 

(^.  Asin.  864;  Merc.  711;  Men.  1 135)  do  not  belong 
here,  inasmuch  as  the  passage  Rud.  1258 

Illuc  est  quod  nos  nequam  seruis  utimur 

^  All  citations  from  Plautus  follow  the  larger  revision  and 
completion  of  Ritschl's  edition  by  Lowe,  Gotz  and  Scholl. 


Eo  =  Ideo,  Hoc  =  Ideo.  37 

proves  that  this  hoc  is  an  Accusative.  Slightly  differ- 
ent is  Lucr.  6,379,  where  Wakefield  {apud  Munro  ad 
loc.)  would  take  hoc  in  the  causal  sense.  Munro  is 
clearly  right  in  rejecting  this  explanation  of  the  word. 
In  like  manner  the  passage  Miles  132 1 

Istuc  crucior,  a  viro  me  tali  abalienarier 

shows  that  Stichus  9 

sed  hoc,  soror,  crucior: 

Patrem  tuom  meumque .... 

(13,14). .  .nunc  inprobi  uiri  oflScio  uti 

is  to  be  excluded  from  this  context.     In  Stichus  41 

ego  te  hoc,  soror,  tametsi  es  maior, 

Moneo  ut  tuom  memineris  officium 

hoc  is  plainly  Accusative.  For  Miles  297  see  below 
p.  40. 

There  is  to  my  knowledge  no  instance  of  this 
construction  in  Terence.  Was  the  graceful  imitator  of 
the  Greeks  led  by  his  love  of  sermonis  elegantia  to 
avoid  the  construction  ?  The  only  passage  that  I  can 
call  into  question  is  Phor.  804,  and  since  the  causal 
hoc  does  not  occur  in  the  comicorum  fragmenta,  Ki ess- 
lingo:^  Hor.  Sat.  1,2,53  "wie  ofters  in  der  Sprache  der 
Komodie"  should  read  "wie  vereinzelt  bei  Plautus." 
A  similar  judgment  must  be  passed  upon  I^orenz  ad 
Mil.  850  "hoc  =  'darum';  derselbe  Abl.  Pseud.  807; 
822  und  ofters."  The  only  other  examples  which 
Hand,  Tursellinus  111,92  and  93  cites  as  certain  are: 
I^ucr.  4,555  (now  553);  660  (now  658);  624  (now  622); 
Virg.  Geo.  2,425  (Uss.  ad  Plant.  Aul.  248  takes  Virg. 
Aen.  9,492  in  this  way);  Plin.  Epist.  2,19,3  l^oc  quod; 
Seruiana  schol.   ant.   litt.  ad  Eel.   10,18  (Duker  pro- 


38  The  Latin  Pronouyis. 

poses  here  ob  hoc  against  the  MSS).  If  to  these  we 
add  lyucil.  6,29  (corrected  by  Miiller  to  hac);  Catullus 
44,13  (where  cod.  Oxoniensis  reads  h  =  hoc);  lyUcr.  4, 
360;  6,274;  864  (in  all  these  instances,  as  in  the  cases 
cited  by  Hand,  the  word  stands  in  the  formula  hoc 
ubi'  at  the  beginning  of  a  hexameter);  3,531  (where  hoc 
is  a  conjecture  of  Munro  for  the  MSS.  reading  haec); 
Hor.  Sat.  i,2,53f;  1,6,41;  1,7,10;  we  shall  see  that  one 
may  well  question  the  correctness  of  Kiessling's  pro- 
cedure in  making  this  construction  characteristic  of 
the  language  of  comedy. 

The  construction  was  doubtless  avoided  on  account 
of  the  phonetic  identity  of  hoc  Nom.  and  Ace.  sg.,  hoc 
Abl.  and  hoc  Adverb  (  =  hue),  which  rendered  the 
form  ambiguous.  Careful  writers  could  therefore  em- 
ploy the  form  only  where  the  context  left  no  doubt  as 
to  its  meaning.  They  could  easily  find  substitutes  for 
it  in  the  causal  expressions  ob  hanc  rem,  ob  hanc  cau- 
sam,  de  hac  causa,  hac  causa  (later  also  hinc)  and  the 
like,  or  if  necessar}^  in  qua  causa,  qua  de  causa,  quam 
ob  rem,  etc.  It  was  no  doubt  in  part  this  feeling  that 
led  to  the  juxtaposition  of  the  Ablatives  ipso,  solo, 
uno  and  the  superlative  maxime,  although,  of  course, 
no  one  would  deny  that  these  words  at  the  same  time 
intensify  or  otherwise  modify  the  meaning  of  hoc. 
Another  means  of  avoiding  the  locution  was  the  phrase 
ob  hoc  discussed  below,  pp.  73£F.  Ter.  And.  268  offers 
ex  hoc.  The  same  purpose  is  imperfectly  served  by 
the  addition  of  a  quod  clause  (causal),  although  in 

^  I/Ucretius  has  similarly  hie  ubi  at  the  beginning  of  a  hexa- 
meter in  6,446;  524;  S36;  {^cf.  Hor.  Epist.  2,2,136).  In  Lucre- 
tius 4,1093  hoc  =  "bj'  this  means." 


Eo  ■=  Ideo,  Hoc  =  Ideo.  39 

some  cases  this  clause  is  itself  susceptible  of  a  double 
interpretation,  and  more  perfectly  effected  by  the  addi- 
tion of  a  quia  or  a  quom  clause,  which  last  form  of 
correlation  had  a  precourser  in  the  Greek  robnxi  .... 
^£«T£,  as  exemplified  in  Antiphon  -n^pi  r.  Hpw.  <Puv.  3 
TouTU)  iawdrjijav^  dcoTt  ■<£0>  i</>eu<Tavro. 

The  causal  Ablative  eo  is  slightly  more  common  in 
its  simplest  form  than  is  causal  hoc.  A  typical  exam- 
ple of  this  usage  is  Plant.  Trin,  363  f. 

Nam  sapiens  quidem  pol  ipsus  fingit  fortunam 

sibi:  [malust. 

Eo  non  multa  quae  neuolt  eueniunt,  nisi  fictor 

The  remaining  instances  in  Plautus  are:  Bacch.  298 

Non  me  fefellit,  sensi:  eo  exanimatus  fui; 

Bacch.  95;  Capt.  837;  860;  Cist.  7  (dis);  Poen.  288; 
Pers.  276;  Rud.  876;  True.  85.  Trin.  372  (not  371) 
may  perhaps  be  placed  here.  Truculentus  180  is 
doubtless  an  interpolation. 

Poen.  478  . .  .  .uiscum  legioni  dedi 

Fundasque:  eo  praesternebant  folia  farferi 

is  beyond  doubt  the  right  reading,  but  eo  is  here  an 
Ablative  of  means.  I  believe  Ussing's  interpretation 
of  Asin.  435  (=  432U)  eo  =  "than  he"  is  correct,  but 
the  parallels  he  cites  are  not  appropriate  and  do  not 
prove  the  point.  There  are  to  my  knowledge  only 
these  eleven  certain  instances  in  Plautus. 

From  Terence  I  can  cite  only  the  passage  Hec.  238 

Knim  lassam  oppido  aibant  tum  esse:  eo  ad  eam 
non  admissa  sum. 

The  passage  Adel.  620  offers  an  instance  of  eo  denot- 


40  The  Latin  Pro7iouns. 

ing  purpose  or  end,  not  cause.  After  Terence  we  first 
meet  this  pronoun  in  the  Ciceronian  age.  For  even 
assuming  the  correctness  of  the  reading  in  Cato,  De 
Agr.  22,3  (see  Keil's  critical  note  ad  loc),  we  must 
interpret  it  with  Gottfr.  Grosse  (translation  of  Cato, 
Halle,  1787)  and  Holtze,  Syntax,  prise,  script.  1, 221 
in  the  sense  "for  this  purpose,"  "to  this  end"  (Grosse: 
"die  kosten  dazu  betragen  ....").  In  fact,  notwith- 
standing the  statement  of  Kiihner,  op.  cit.  II,  p.  745 
{cf.  Hand,  Turs.  II,  410)  to  the  contrary,  the  usage  is 
well  attested  for  Cicero  himself  and  for  Sallust.  The 
instances  are:  Cic.  De  Div.  2,46  f rater  es;  eo  uereor; 
De  Nat.  Deor.  2,30  quocirca  sapientem  esse  mundum 

necesse   est,    naturamque   perfectione   rationis 

excellere,  eoque  deum  esse  mundum,  omnemque  uim 
mundi  natura  diuina  continere;  De  Fin.  3,16  fieri 
autem  non  posset,  ut  appeterent  aliquid,  nisi  sensum 
haberent  sui  eoque  se  diligerent;  Sallust,  Jug.  42,1 
nobilitas  noxia  atque  eo  perculsa;  Orat.  Phil.  13 
(=  Maurenbrecher  Fr.  1,77,13)  antea  malum  publicum 
occulte,  auxilia  palam  instruebatur,  eo  boni  malos 
facile  anteibant.  It  does  not  occur  in  these  two  writ- 
ers without  the  connectives  et,  que  or  atque.  From 
this  time  on  eo  occurs  in  its  simple  form  in  all  periods 
of  the  development  of  the  language,  at  least  down  to 
Boethius  (De  Consol.  Phil.  3,3/r,4). 

Here  should  also  find  mention  the  formula  eo  fit 
ut,  as  in  Cic.  Acad.  2,66;  De  Leg.  3,39;  Sallust,  Cat. 
52,23;  53,4.  The  familiar  type  of  construction  Plaut. 
Most.  636 

Quid  eost  argento  factum  ? 

along  with  hinc  fit,  inde  fit,  etc.,  would  perhaps  lead 


.   Eo  =  Ideo,  Hoc  —  Ideo.  41 

one  to  suppose  that  the  eo  here  expresses  an  idea  of 
separation  or  of  source  rather  than  one  of  cause.  Yet 
on  the  other  hand,  when  we  meet  with  such  instances 
as  Plant.  Amph.  756 

Eo  fit  quia  mihi  plurimum  credo 

{cf.  Ter.  Haut.  505,  in  which  eo  is  correlated  with  a 
causal  conjunction),  and  such  as  Plant.  Cure.  61  id 
eo  fit,  quia  ||  ideo  BEJ  ||  ,  in  which  the  subject  of  fit 
is  expressed,  we  are  led  to  conclude  that  the  probabili- 
ties are  at  least  as  strong,  that  the  Romans  felt  the 
causal  force  of  the  eo  in  this  formula.^ 

Those  who  wish  to  study  this  locution  more  in  de- 
tail may  consult  the  following  passages:  Hor.  Sat.  i, 
6,89;  1,9,55;  2,8,65;  I-ivy  2,48,4;  3,66,4;  71,6;  4,7, 
11;  10,9;  5,16,4;  17,10;  20,9;  46,9;  6,5,5;  7,8,5;  19, 
5;  8,8,8;  17,8;  9,11,11;  36,4;  40,9;  22,47,5;  29,1,20; 
20,1;  25,12;  30,42,16;  (Observe  that  in  lyivy  this  con- 
struction is  confined  for  the  most  part  to  the  first  de- 
cade— Cf.  Stacey,  Die  Entwickelung  des  livian.  Stiles, 
in  Archiv  fiir  latein.  Lexikographie  and  Grammatik 
X  (1898),  p.  17-82);  Velleius  Pat.  2,67,4;  PHn.  Nat. 
Hist.  24,62;  Quint.  2,16,4;  i7,7;  4,2,80  (Bonnell  reads 
aut);  119;  3,3;  11,3,29;  for  Tacitus  (about  fifty  instan- 
ces) see  Gerber  und  Greef  p.  351;  Pronto  24/;^(N); 
Apuleius,  Apol.  pp.  500,17  (Paris  edition  of  1688); 
509,2;  514,1;  525,8;  etc.,  etc.;  Gellius  11,9,1;  Censori- 
nus,  De  Die  Nat.  18,8;  8,5;  14,2;  Victor,  Historia 
Abbreviata  15,3;  38,5;  39,20;  40,8. 

As  in  the  case  of  hoc,  so  in  that  of  eo,  ambiguity 
(since  eo  may  mean    "thither,"    "to  the  end  that" 

1  Cf.  also  ita  fit  ut. 

6 


42  The  Latin  Pronotins. 

— expressing    purpose — or    "hence,"     with    illative 


force)  led  to  the  infrequent  use  of  the  word,  which 
was  avoided  by  differentiation,  giving  rise  to  the 
forms  ideo  and  eo  usque.  Still  other  expressions, 
such  as  propterea,  ob  earn  rem,  ea  causa,  etc.,  and 
later  inde  and  ob  id,  contributed  to  the  disuse  of  eo 
causal. 

From  the  foregoing,  particularly  from  the  infre- 
quent occurrence  of  hoc,  it  is  clear  that  we  can  speak 
of  a  rivalry  between  hoc  and  eo  in  the  simple  forms 
only  in  a  limited  sense.  Both  of  these  expressions 
are  more  frequently  used  in  correlation  with  a  causal 
or  a  conditional  clause.     In  Plaut.  Mil.  298 

Primumdum,  si  falso  insimulas  Philocomasium, 
hoc  perieris. 

hoc  gathers  up  the  cause  just  stated  in  conditional 
form  {cf.  below  p.  47).  The  only  passage  in  Plautus 
that  can  possibly  be  considered  to  exemplify  the  usage 
is  that  quoted  by  Hand,  op.  cit.  p.  93,  Rud.  388 

Hoc  sese  excruciat  animi, 
Quia  leno  ademit  cistulam  ei. 

Munro  also  ad  I,ucr.  3,531  cites  this  passage  as  an 
instance  of  causal  hoc.  The  question  may,  however, 
be  raised  whether  hoc  is  here  Ablative  or  Accusative. 
A  very  close  parallel  is  afforded  by  Trin.  11 70 

Quom  ille  itast  ut  eum  esse  nolo,  id  crucior, 
the  only  difference  being  that  this  instance  has  the 
passive  (middle  ?)  voice  instead  of  the  active.  Another 
type  of  construction  which  strongly  confirms  the 
assumption  that  hoc  is  Accusative,  is  that  found  in 
Stichus  9ff.  cited   above,  in  which   an  epexegetical 


Eo  =  Ideo,  Hoc  =  Ideo.  43 

Accusativus  cum  iiifinitivo  stands  in  apposition  with 
the  hoc.  This  is  evidently  also  the  view  of  Kiihner, 
op.  cit.  II,  §  126, 3, b,  who  cites  Stich.  gff.,  Mil.  1321 

Istuc  crucior,  a  viro  me  tali  abalienarier, 

and  Capt.  597  (should  be  600) 

Crucior  lapidem  non  habere  me, 

under  the  rubric  "Der  Ace.  cum  Inf.  steht..  ..nach 
den  verbis  affectuum."  The  construction  does  not  to 
my  knowledge  occur  in  Terence.  In  fact  it  is  not 
until  comparatively  late  in  the  period  of  the  Silver 
L^atinity  that  hoc... quia,  etc.,  becomes  at  all  fre- 
quent. It  is  quite  common  in  the  Patristic  literature 
from  Cyprian  on,  usually  in  the  correlation  hoc.  .. 
quod,  in  which  case  ambiguity  is  usually  avoided  by 
adding  ipso.  Cypr.  Epist.  30,5^  qui  ruerunt,  hoc 
ruerunt,  quod  caeca  temeritate  incauti  fuerunt;  3i,5/> 
iam  hoc  ipso  quod  non  cessimus,  uicimus;  6m  nee  hoc 
animentur  quia  multi  sunt,  sed  hoc  ipso  ||  ipsud  T  || 
magis  reprimantur,  quia  non  pauci  sunt;  Arnobius 
2,2/)  uel  hoc  ipso ....  quod . .  . . ,  quod . .  . . ;  Tertullian, 
Ad  Nat.  \,^p  cum  tamen  aliquos  de  nostris  malos 
probatis,  iam  hoc  ipso  Christianos  non  probatis;  Am- 
brosius  Kx.  1,6,23(12  F)  nam  hoc  ipso  quod  diuersae 
eadem  sint  naturae,  simplicem. .  .  .motum  habere  non 
possunt.  Passages  from  pagan  writers  are  Script. 
Hist.  Augustae,  Avid.  Cas.  7,8;  XXX  Tyran.  26,7; 
Boeth.  De  Consol.  5,6/>r,45. 

Owing  to  the  frequency  of  the  correlative  use  of 
is,  eo  is  far  more  common  in  this  construction.  It 
occurs  in  Plautus  (eo....quod  or  quia):  Asin.  620; 
844;    Bacch.    319;    Capt.     70;    994;    Cist.    237;    492; 


44  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

Pers.  785;  834;  Rud.  24;  11 14;  Stich.  177;  True. 
272;  Vid.  70;  in  Terence  (under  the  form  eo.... 
quod  or  eo. .  .  .quia):  Haut.  787;  Eun.  415;  Ad.  698; 
and  in  Cato,  De  Agr.  6,4  eo  quia;  17,1  eo  quia  ||  ea 
quae  Jocundus  ||  ;  37,1  quod..  ..eo.  Here  I  would 
place  also  the  passage  from  the  Origines  cited  by 
Gellius  17,13,3  non  ....  eos  . .  . .  eo  postremo  scribo 
quin  populi  et  boni  et  strenui  sient,  "I  mention  them 
last  not  for  this  reason  because  they  are  not . .  . . " 
Gellius  cites  this  passage  in  explanation  of  the  quin 
in  the  sentence  non  idcirco  Isocrates  causas  non  de- 
fendit,  quin  id  utile  esse  et  hones tum  existumaret. 
"Isocrates'  reason  for  refraining  from  the  pleading  of 
law  suits  was  not  that  he  thought  it  profitless  and  dis- 
honorable." The  usage  is  also  found  in  Plautus' 
Trin.  341 

Non  eo  haec  dico  quin  quae  tu  uis  ego  uelim  et 

faciam  lubens: 
Sed 

The  construction  represents  the  more  usual  non  eo . .  . . 
quia  non  (compare  Asin.  844),  and  is  parallelled  by 
Ter.  Haut.  554 

Neque  eo  nunc  dico,  quo  quicquam  ilium  sen- 

serim; 
Sed  siquid,  ne  quid, 

where  an  affirmative  motive  is  stated,  "I  mention  it 
now  not  that  (because)  I  may  have  noticed  anything 


^  On  obtaining  access,  after  much  difficulty,  to  O.  Kienitz, 
De  quin  particulae  apud  priscos  scriptores  Latinos  usu  (Carls- 
ruhe,  1878),  I  notice  that  he  brings  (p.  21 )  the  passage  from  Cato 
into  connection  with  Plautus,  Trin.  341. 


Eo  =  Ideo,  Hoc  =  Ideo.  45 

in  him,  but....",  and   with   reversed  order   of   the 
clauses,  by  Ter.  Kun.  96f, 

Non  pol,  quo . .  .  .plus. .  .  .diligam, 
Eo  feci :  sed .... 

A  sed  would  naturally  follow  the  two  passages  from 
Gellius.  The  second  one  (which  Gellius  cites  first) 
bears  on  its  face  indications  of  being  ' '  made  to  order ' ' 
by  some  rhetorician  and  not  quoted  from  a  work  of 
literature.  This  construction  is  not  recognized  in 
Harpers'  I,exicon,  sitb  voc.  quin.  The  correlation 
eo  ....  quod,  etc. ,  further  occurs  in  Rhetorica  ad 
Herennium  3,4,7/';  in  Cicero's  orations  thirteen  times, 
in  Nepos,  Eum.  11,5  (see  addendum,  p.  219  infra);  in 
Celsus,  B'ks  1-5,  seven  times.  Its  association  with 
quod  was  so  common  (the  two  words  being  either  sepa- 
rated by  intervening  words  or  in  juxtaposition),  that 
the  words  coalesced  both  in  form  and  meaning  {cf.  Ital. 
cio  che  <  ecce  +  hoc  +  quod)  so  that  eo  quod  (causal) 
comes  to  be  equivalent  to  quod  (causal).  This  coales- 
cence is  convincingly  proved  by  the  circumstance  that, 
after  quod,  quia,  quoniam  take  on  the  usage  dico  quod 
(quia,  ctc^  es(se)t  =  dico  esse,  eo  quod  is  also  (in  late 
Latin)  used  in  the  same  way — see  S.  Siluiae  Perigri- 
natio  ad  Eoca  Sancta  8,2  dicent  eo  quod,  "they  will 
say  that";  8,5  retuht  eo  quod.  Particularly  instruct- 
ive is  the  New  Testament  passage  Mark  9,26(25), 
where  the  following  readings  represent  the  original 
iu<;xt  Toh<z  TtoUobq  Xiyetv  ore  aiziOave'^. 

I  Vulgate:  ut  multi  dicerent  quia  mortuus  est  (so 
cod.  Brixianus  f  and  the  majority  of  the  ante-Hiero- 
nymian  translations,  with  either  est  or  esset). 


46  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

2  Cod.  Veronensis  b:  dicer ent  eo  quod  mortuus 
esset. 

In  the  S.  Siluiae  Peri  grin,  the  construction  occurs 
pp.  48,27;  49,12;  58,9;  63,31;  64,13  and,  with  the 
infinitive,  66,6.  In  Justinian's  Novellae  eo  quod  is 
sometimes  used  to  render  bum.  In  679-680  A.  d.  in  a 
judgment  of  Thierry  III  (printed  in  lyindsay.  Hand- 
book of  Lat.  Inscr.  p.  127)  occur  the  expressions 
dicerit  eo  quod  porcione  sua  .  .  .  retenirit  and  dedit  in 
respunsis  eo  quod  ipsa  terra. .  .  .tenuerant.  This  coa- 
lescence justifies  what  would  otherwise  appear  to  be 
redundency  in  the  excerpta  ex  libr.  glossar.  apud 
Gotz,  Corpus  V,2i5,5  lampadas  solstitium  estibum 
{sic\)  ....  ideo  lampadas  dicitur  eo  quod  ex  eo  die 
lampas  soXxs. .  .  .{cf.  Isidore.  De  Nat.  Rerum  8,2  sol- 
stitium autem  aestiuum  ideo  lampas  dicitur  eo  quod 
,...;  Etymol.  1,17,7  ^ote  a).  See  also  Bonnet,  Le 
Latin  de  Gr^goire  de  Tours,  p.  326.  A  similar  cumu- 
lation of  causal  particles  occurs  in  Isidore,  Origines 
1,4,16  a.... in  omnibus  gentibus  ideo  prior  est  lit- 
terarum  pro  eo  quod  ipsa  prior  nascentibus  uocem 
aperiat. 

The  gradually  weakening  eo  was  replaced,  as  has 
been  implied  above,  by  ob  id,  ob  hoc,  ideo,  idcirco, 
propterea,  ob  eam  rem  (causam),  and  other  causal  ex- 
pressions. 

It  is  a  matter  of  great  difficulty,  even  if  it  is  not 
impossible,  for  us  to  know  whether  the  Romans  felt 
any  difference  between  the  eo  in  the  type  of  sen- 
tences just  mentioned  and  that  exemplified  by  Plant. 
Aul.  240 

Eo  dico,  ne  me  thensauros  reperisse  censeas; 


Eo  =  Ideo,  Hoc  =  Ideo.  47 

and  Ter.  Phor.  745 

Eo  perperam  olim  dixi,  ne  uos. .  . . 
Effutiretis, 

in  which  eo  looks  forward  to  a  purpose  clause  instead 
of  a  causal  clause.  The  same  difficulty  arises  in  the 
case  of  the  two  correlations  hoc  (Abl.). ..  .quod  and 
hoc  (Abl.) ....  ut(ne).  However  the  case  may  stand,  it 
is  desirable  for  the  purposes  of  modern  grammatical 
study  to  draw  a  sharp  distinction  between  the  two 
constructions,  and  not  to  cite  the  latter  type  as  an  ex- 
ample of  causal  eo  or  hoc,  as  is  sometimes  done  by 
modern  writers. 

This  same  uncertainty  arises,  when  we  inquire 
whether  the  Romans  were  conscious  of  a  difference  in 
meaning  between  the  use  of  the  Ablative  in  the  form 
eo  (hoc) ....  quia,  and  eo  (hoc) ....  si  (quia . .  . .  eo  (hoc) 
and  si. .  .  .eo(hoc) ).  If  Nepos  in  a  well  known  pas- 
sage Hann.  2,6  used  cum  and  si  (apparently  merely 
varietatis  causa)  to  express  two  similar  sets  of  relation- 
ships, with  how  much  greater  ease  might  a  speaker 
have  passed  (either  consciously  or  unconsciously)  from 
eo  (hoc) ....  quia  to  eo  (hoc) . .  . .  si !  The  construc- 
tion occurs  as  early  as  Plautus  (see  Trin.  371(372?) 
II  eo  om.  cod.  F  ||  ;  Poen.  1194). 

The  answer  to  the  question  whether  in  these  con- 
structions hoc  retains  a  strong  demonstrative  force, 
while  eo  remains  purely  correlative,  is  one  which  must 
have  a  more  or  less  subjective  coloring.  Yet  it  is  cer- 
tain that  hoc  could  not  have  been  used  extensively 
(and  we  are  justified  in  assuming  that  it  was  used 
more  extensively  in  the  colloquial  language  than  in 
the  literary  language)  without  sacrificing  some,  if  not 


48  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

all,  of  its  demonstrative  force.  This  statement  holds 
true  nudatis  mutandis  of  the  other  formulae  discussed 
in  this  chapter.  In  the  case  of  the  others,  however, 
the  rivalry  of  the  two  pronouns  was  sharper  than  in 
the  present  case,  and  the  tendency  to  confusion  greater. 


Note. — Id  causal  or  expressing  purpose  and  hoc 
(Ace.)  bearing  the  same  meanings  are  of  such  infre- 
quent occurrence  that  they  need  not  be  discussed  here. 
Hand,  £>/>.  cit.,  does  not  mention  them  (he  treats  hoc 
causal  throughout  as  an  Ablative).  The  only(?)  cases 
of  this  id  in  Plautus  and  Terence  are:  Plant.  Amph. 
909;  Capt.  680;  Epid.  192;  Mil.  1158;  Terence,  And. 
157;  376;  414;  Eun.  150;  323  (schoha,  ed.  Schlee  p. 
101,5  "'^]  propter  hoc");  393  (scholia,  p.  102,1  ''id] 
propter  hoc");  829  (scholia  p.  109:  "/V]  propter  id"); 
1005  (scholia,  p.  112:  "/^]  ideo");  Hec.  368;  Phor. 
259;  Adel.  791  (scholia,  p.  160,15).  See  further 
Kiihner,  op.  cit.  II,  p.  212,  Anm.  3. 

2.    Eo  cum  comparativo  =  hoc  cum.  comparativo. 

The  instrumental  construction  ' '  bj^  this  (so  much) 
the  more,  less,"  etc.,  and  the  Ablative  proper  (separa- 
tion) construction  are  here  to  be  distinguished.  Hoc 
(Abl.)  plus  ne  facito  is  cited  by  Cicero  from  the  lex 
XII  tabular um  (see  Sclioll  p.  153)  in  De  I^eg.  2,59. 
Both  constructions  occur  with  hoc  and  eo  in  Plautus 
and  Terence.     The  following  are  the  passages: 

A.  Instrumental  hoc:  Plant.  Amph.  166  f. 

....  dura  hoc  ||  hec  codd.  E  F;  haec  Z; 
corr.  Angelius  ||  <  magis  >  {add.  Cam- 
erarius)  servitus  est 


Eo  aiid  Hoc  with  the  Comparative.  49 

Quod  noctesque   diesque   adsiduo   satis  super- 
quest  .... 

(254)  Hoc  adeo  hoc  coumemini  magis,  quia  illo 
die  inpransus  fui; 
Ter.  Eun.  220  f. 

Phaed.  Opus  faciam,  ut  defetiger  usque,  ingra- 
tiis  ut  dormiam. 

Farm.  Uigilabis  lassus:  hoc  plus  facies. 

B.  Ablative  hoc:  Plaut.  Cure.  670  f. 

....  Hoc  prius  uolo 
Meam  rem  agere; 
Pers.  764 

....  Oh,  nihil  hoc  magis  dulcest; 
cf.  Rud.  279 

Neque  hoc  amplius. .  .  .quicquamst; 
Ter.  And.  30  f. 

. .  .  .Quid  est, 
Quod  tibi  mea  ars  eflficere  hoc  possit  amplius? 

C.  Instrumental  eo:  Plaut.  Aul.  376 

Atque  eo  fuerunt  cariora,  aes  non  erat; 
Cist.  298  f . 

Uideo  ego  te  Amoris  ualde  tactum  toxico, 
Adulescens;  eo  te  magis  uolo  monitum. 

Mil.  1080  Ko  minus  dixi,  ne  haec  censeret  me  aduor- 

sum  se  mentire; 
Most.  763  f. 

Nam  ille  eo  maiore  hinc  opere  sibi  exemplum 

petit. 
Quia  isti  umbram  audivit  esse  aestate  perbonam; 

so  Men.  151;  Merc.  971;  Most.  902  a;  Poen.  883;  Rud. 
9 


50  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

92;  Trill.  274;  856;  {cf.  Cist.  380  eo  sum  tardiuscula). 
Ter,  Ad.  698 

Quia   tarn   misere   hoc    esse    cupio   uerum,    eo 
uereor  magis. 

D.  Ablative  eo:  Plaut.  Mil.  926 

Eo  pptuit  hercle  lepidius  nil  fieri; 
Ter.  Haut.  62  f. 

. .  . .  Annos  sexaginta  natus  es, 
Aut  plus  eo,  ut  conicio . .  . . ; 
Hec.  421 

Dies  triginta  aut  plus  eo  in  naui  fui. 

Cato  has  only  hoc,  and  always  in  the  phrase  hoc 
amphus  (=  praeterea),  De  Agr.  57;  94;  142;  157,10. 
In  the  Rhetorica  ad  Herennium,  on  the  contrary,  the 
hoc  does  not  occur,  while  eo  is  found  eight  times, 
always  as  an  instrumental. 

From  the  very  first  we  notice  a  discrimination 
between  these  two  pronouns;  we  find  the  instrumental 
use  predominant  with  eo,  and  the  usage  that  is  devel- 
oped from  the  true  Ablative  predominant  with  hoc. 
This  is  very  conspicuous  in  the  case  of  Plautus  and 
the  Rhetorica  ad  Herennium.  In  Plautus  there  are 
twelve  cases  of  instrumental  eo  to  one  of  the  true  Abl. 
construction  and  two  of  instrumental  hoc  to  three  of 
the  Abl.  construction. 

The  distinction  is  still  more  apparent  in  the  writ- 
ings of  Cicero.  We  find  the  true  Ablative  eo  only  half  a 
dozen  times  in  the  orations,  philosophical  writings  and 
the  letters  Ad  Familiares  and  Ad  Quintum  Fratrem  [cf. 
Acad.  2,35  quid  eo  levins?  De  Fin.  1,41  quid  eo  mise- 
rius  dici  aut  fingi  potest  ?  De  Nat.  Deor.  3,23  nihil  est 


Eo  and  Hoc  with  the  Coj7tparative .  51 

eo  {sc.  mundo)  melius:  nihil  est  enim  eo  pulcrius).  In 
contrast  with  this  we  find  eo  over  one  hundred  and 
forty  times  as  an  instrumental.  Similarly  in  Varro, 
Res  Rust,  eo  =  "than  this"  onl}^  once,  1,18,3  eo 
plus,  but  is  used  with  the  other  meaning  about  fifteen 
times.  Varro 's  use  of  the  word  is  somewhat  circum- 
scribed. He  joins  it  usually  with  magis,  minus  or 
facilius.  Sallust  likewise  has  in  Jug.  80,6  eo  amplius  = 
plures  denis,  but  with  the  other  force  eighteen  times. 
Both  Nepos  and  Livy  (Books  41-45  are  not  included) 
use  it  onl)^  in  this  latter  sense,  nine  times  and  one 
hundred  times  respectively.  Celsus  in  books  1-3  fol- 
lows lyivy,  using  in  all  but  one  passage  {i,pr.  eo. .  . . 
magis  quoniam)  the  relative  quo  instead  of  quia,  quo- 
niam,  ne,  etc. 

With  hoc  we  find  the  case  entirely  different.  Cicero 
differs  from  Cato  in  that  he  uses  hoc  with  the  com- 
parative supported  by  or  introducing  quia,  quod,  etc., 
that  is  to  say,  in  sharp  rivalry  with  eo,  in  thirty-four 
passages  in  his  orations  (see  Merguet,  I^ex.  sub  voc.  II, 
p.  468,  d,  a),  and  in  twenty-two  passages  in  his  philo- 
sophical writings  (Merguet,  II,  p.  154,5,  d,  a).  In  the 
letters  (only  partially  collated)  it  occurs  in  both  senses 
(Ad  Fam.  4,4,2  hoc  ipso  melior. .  .  .quod;  11,29,3  ^oc 
mihi  gratius  facere  nihil  potes; — the  same  words  in 
13,66,2;  74;  79;  16,22,2).  Sallust  avoided  hoc  en- 
tirely, always  using  ad  hoc  instead  of  hoc  amplius  and 
hoc  plus.  Varro,  Res  Rust.  3,10,3  has  hoc  minus 
and  hoc  plus  Ablative.  Nepos  has  it  only  three  times: 
Ale.  11,2  hoc  amplius;  Timoth.  4,6  hoc  plura.... 
quod;  Dat.  5,4  hoc  maiore  fore  in  discrimine,  quod .... 
lyivy  also  only  three  times   (books  41-45  are  not   in- 


52 


The  Latin  Pjvnouns. 


eluded)  1,23,8;  36,25,4;  38,26,7;  being  in  each  case 
translatable  by  "so  much  the."  Celsus  offers  us  3,5 
(=  p.  83  D)  hoc  ipso  peius..  ..quod;  8,1  {—  p.  326) 
quo  latiora. .  .  .sunt,  hoc  hebetiora.  The  lack  of  a 
stronger  demonstrative  force  in  the  determinative 
makes  its  use  as  an  instrumental  Ablative  impossible 
except  in  a  few  cases,  while  the  weakening  of  the 
demonstrative  force  in  hoc  makes  possible  its  use  in 
the  other  sense. 

The   following   passages   will   illustrate   the  close 
contact  of  the  two  constructions: 


Valer.  Max.  i,/r.  meapar- 
uitas  eo  iustius  ad  fauo- 
rem  tuum  decuciu-rerit, 
quo  cetera  diuinitas 
opinione  colligitur. 

Plin.  Nat.  Hist.  8,1  quo 
largiore  aluntur  lacte  eo 
tardiorem  uisum  accipi- 
unt. 

14,80  uinum  omne  dulce 
minus  odoratum,  quo 
tenuius  eo  odoratius. 

Sueton.  Cal.  15  inferias.. 
instituit,  et  eo  amplius 
(=praeterea)  matri  Cir- 
censes  .  .  . 

Florus  1,24(2,8),  18  partem 
....  dari  placuit  eo  li- 
bentius,  quod .... 


3,3j£'.r/, I  rex,  quo  patien- 
tia  pueri  magis  delecta- 
tus  est,  hoc  II  et  hoc  A^  |[ 
certius  perseuerantiae 
experimentum  sumere 
uoluit.   cf.  3,6,1;  4,7,2. 

10, 175  omnia  animalia  quo 
maiore  corpore,  hoc  mi- 
nus fecunda. 

23,40  quo  generosius  ui- 
num est,  hoc  magis  ue- 
tustate  crassescit. 

Jul.  38  nummos,  quos  pol- 
licitus  olim  erat,  uiritim 
diuisit,  et  hoc  amplius 
centenos  pro  mora. 

1, 18(2,2), 14  hoc  inlustrior 
noster(5^.  exercitus), 
quod .... 


Id  est  and  Hoc  est.  53 

Hoc  amplius  was  a  favorite  and  often  employed 
phrase  (beginning  with  Plant.  Rud.  279),  and  was  used 
from  Cicero  (see  Tull.  44;  Phil.  13,50),  and  (?)  Varro 
{cf.  Res.  Rust.  2,10,9)  on,  in  the  sense  of  praeterea  or 
ad  hoc.  Instead  of  it,  eo  amplius  appears  unexpect- 
edly in  Suetonius  {vid.  sup.),  Aggenus  Urbicus,  Ter- 
tullian,  De  Pud.  5  (  =  p.  226,20),  lyUcifer  Caralitanus, 
De  Regibus  Apostatis  11  (  =  p.  61,24  H)  and  Gains 
2,172;  3,212.  Instead  of  the  usual  eo  secius,  we  meet 
in  lyucan  1,315  hoc  secius,  doubtless  due  to  the  poet's 
strict  avoidance  of  the  determinative.  Of  the  poets, 
lyUcretius  alone,  to  my  knowledge,  uses  eo  with  the 
comparative.  See  1,69  eo  magis,  with  which  com- 
pare 2,125  hoc  etiam  magis;  2,826f.  quanto. ...  |  .... 
magis,  hoc  magis,  and  Virg.  Aen.  5,94  hoc  magis; 
Geor.  4,248  quo  magis. .  . . ,  hoc  acrius. 

J.    Id  est  and  hoc  est. 

Id  est  is  doubtless  the  older  of  these  two  formulae. 
Hoc  est  is  met  for  the  first  time  in  lyUcilius  9,32  f. 

....  in  praeposito  per 
Pelhciendo,  hoc  est  inducendo  geminato  ly. 

Id  est  occurs  for  the  first  time  in  Cato,  De  Agr.  57 
(three  times).  The  real  rivalry  between  them  begins 
for  us  with  the  Rhet.  ad  Herennium  and  is,  of  course, 
confined  to  prose.  Although  id  est  stands  nowhere  in 
the  work  without  a  variant,  yet  the  reading  is  scarcely 
to  be  rejected  in  1,16,26;;^  and  should  probably  be 
retained  in  1,6,10.  Hoc  est  occurs  seven  times,  serv- 
ing always  to  define  a  general  idea  by  i)  stating  its 
component  elements,  as  in  1,7,11^  hae  tres  utilitates 
tametsi  in  tota  oratione  sunt  conparandae,  hoc  est,  ut 


54  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

auditores  sese  perpetuo  nobis  attentos,  dociles,  beui- 
uolos  praebeant,  tamen....;  cf.  2,i4,2i/>;  2,30,48/; 
3,8,15^;  3,9;  16/;  or  by  2)  adding  a  result  brought 
about  by  the  idea  defined,  as  i,6,9/>  cum  turpem 
causam  habemus,  hoc  est,  cum  ipsa  res  animum  audi- 
toris  a  nobis  ahenat;  3,11,20  mollitudinem  uocis,  hoc 
est,  ut  earn  torquere  in  dicendo  nostro  commodo 
possimus . .  . . f aciet  exercitatio;  4,i,i£'  does  not  here 
concern  us  {cf.  Cic.  De  Nat.  Deor.  1,98;  Lael.  58; 
De  Fin.  2,91;  Tusc.  Disp.  2,30).  Id  est  is  used  in  the 
same  manner:  i)  i,i6,26w  inuenta  ratione  firma- 
mentum  quaerendum  est,  id  est,  quod  continet  accusa- 
tionem,  quod  adfertur  contra  rationem  defensionis. 
2)  1,6,10  si  persuasus  auditor  <  fuerit,  id  est,  >  si  ora- 
tio  aduersariorum  fecerit  fidem  auditoribus ....  With 
hoc  est  4,1,1^  may  be  compared  id  est  4,ii/>;  2,26,40. 
In  Cicero  we  find  convincing  evidence  that  the  two 
phrases  had  fairly  entered  upon  a  course  of  rivalry 
that  was  to  last  over  five  hundred  years.  It  is  clear 
that  Cicero  carefully  weighed  the  two  formulae  and 
adopted  or  rejected  each  at  different  periods  in  the 
development  of  his  style.  In  his  speeches  down  to  the 
year  56  B.  C.  occurs  only  one  unquestioned  case  of  id 
est,  Verr.  3,116,  to  which  may  possibly  be  added  3,67. 
Concerning  the  sentence  id  est ... .  lex,  in  Frag.  A, 
VII, 29  (=  B,  6,13  Orelli  =  pro  Cornelio  II,  anno  65) 
Sigon.  apud  Orellium  II  (1883),  p.  72,12  says  "sus- 
tuli  duas  voces  idest  res,  quae  videntur  in  albo  libri 
positae  fuisse  eis  vocibus  declarandis  'cum  ea  feratur' 
et  locum  hunc  per  se  satis  mendosum  mendosiorem 
reddunt."  Hoc  est,  on  the  other  hand,  occurs  Rose. 
Amer.  {anno  80)  87;   103;   117;  Div.  in  Caecil.  {anno 


Id  est  and  Hoc  est.  55 

70)  11;  Impeachment  of  Verres  {anno  78)  thirty-seven 
times;  Tullio  {anno  72)  50;  Caecina  {anno  69)  eight 
times;  Cluent.  (ai/^j/^' 66)  148;  De  Leg.  Agrar.  (aw/zt*  63) 
1,2;  2,31;  Sulla  {anno  62)  49;  De  Domo  {anno  57)  78; 
Piso.  {anno  55)  (65)66;  Milo.  {anno  52)  24;  Phil,  {anno 
44);  2,70.  This  last  example  "et  consul  et  An tonius!" 
hoc  est  dicere:  et  consul  et  impudicissimus,  et  consul 
et  homo  nequissimus  does  not  strictly  speaking  belong 
in  the  present  category  {of.  De  Nat.  Deor.  1,98  and  the 
similar  examples  referred  to  on  p.  54  S7ipra),  since 
hoc  est  dicere  {cf.  Ital.  cioe  dire)  forms  an  independent 
sentence,  in  which  hoc  clearly  retains  its  strong  demon- 
strative force.  In  other  words,  fifty-three  cases  fall 
before  and  during  the  consulate,  four  after  it.  None 
are  later  than  the  year  52.  To  these  fifty-seven  we 
should  add  sixteen  instances  of  hoc  est  in  the  De 
Inventione  against  one  of  id  est.  After  the  year  56 
are  found  twenty-four  instances  of  id  est  in  the  ora- 
tions, eleven  of  them  in  the  Philippics.  If  Cicero  was 
consistent  in  abandoning  hoc  est  in  his  later  years,  we 
should  expect  to  find  only  id  est  in  his  philosophical 
writings,  all  of  which  fall  in  the  fifties  and  the  forties. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  id  est  occurs  over  a  hundred  times, 
hoc  est  only  five  times,  four  of  these  last  being  in  his 
work  De  Fin.  (2,16;  98;  4,56;  71)  and  one  in  the  De 
Nat.  Deor.  (2,17).  So  also  in  his  letters  Ad  Fam.  hoc 
est  occurs  only  twice  14,2,3  {amio  58);  and  5,12,8 
{an7io  57).  Id  est  stands  5,17,3  {an7w  57)  and  in  eleven 
other  passages  dating  between  the  years  50  and  43  \ 

'Cicero's  correspondents  do  not  follow  the  orator  in  this 
particular.  Hoc  est  was  written  by  Asin.  Pollio  10,32,2  {anno 
43);  Brutus,  Ad  Brutum  1,17,6  {anno  46);  Caecina  6,7,4  {ajtno 
46);  Caelius  8,4,4;  8,9,3  {anno  51);  Trebonius  12,16,1  (a««^  44). 


56  The  Latin  Pro7iou7is. 

The  same  conditions  are  observable  in  the  letters  to 
Atticus  and  to  Quintus.  In  the  De  Oratore  {an?io  55) 
hoc  est  occurs  1,180;  2,66.  If  in  this  formula  hoc 
preserves  to  some  extent  its  demonstrative  force  (and 
Cicero's  consistent  attitude  would  suggest  that  to 
him  the  two  formulae  were  not  strictly  synonymous), 
the  suggestion  ma}^  with  some  hesitation  be  hazarded 
that  hoc  est,  the  stronger  term,  was  found  by  Cicero 
more  natural  when  in  the  height  of  his  energy  and 
power,  while  id  est  was  a  less  forcible  expression 
which  he  adopted  after  his  spirits  were  crushed  by  his 
banishment.  It  may  be  objected  to  this  explanation 
that  it  would  be  vaUd  chiefly  in  explaining  the  usage 
in  the  orations  and  not  so  likely  to  hold  true  of  the 
De  Inventione.  If  we  bring  the  use  of  the  Rhetorica 
ad  Herennium  into  connection  with  that  of  Cicero,  an- 
other explanation  is  suggested.  The  Auctor  may  have 
been  under  the  influence  of  the  Greek  rouTiart  of  his 
sources,  and  may  thus  have  determined  the  usage  of 
Cicero;  or  in  view  of  the  uncertainty  of  our  knowledge 
of  the  relations  of  Cicero  and  the  Auctor  ad  Heren- 
nium, it  may  be  better  to  assume  that  the  two  writers 
were  independently  affected  by  Greek  influence,  to 
which  Cicero's  earl}'  training  in  rhetoric  and  philoso- 
phy exposed  him.  It  may  be  unnecessary  to  assume 
the  influence  of  any  special  book,  since  Cicero  spoke 
Greek  fluently.  In  this  connection  it  is  interesting  to 
note  that  in  the  Archiv  fiir  lat.  Lexikogr.  und  Gram- 
matik  X  (1897),  p.  478,  Prof.  J.  C.  Rolfe  confirms 
(with  additional  evidence  derived  from  the  letters, 
philosophical  and  rhetorical  works)  the  conclusions  of 
H.   Hellmuth   (Acta   Sem.   Erlangensis   i,   p.    i2of.), 


Id  est  and  Hoc  est.  57 

who,  following  up  a  suggestion  of  Wolfflin  (Philologus 
XXXIV,  144),  points  out  that  between  the  years  62 
and  54  B.  C.  Cicero  gradually  passed  in  his  orations 
from  the  spelling  abs  te  to  ab  te.  ^ 

The  consistency  with  which  Cicero's  successors  in 
Roman  literature  adopted  his  later  practice  speaks 
well  for  the  soundness  of  his  judgment,  and  suggests 
that  id  est  was  the  normal  and  natural  phrase.  Varro 
shows  id  est  sixty-eight  times,  not  including  the  doubt- 
ful passages,  two  in  the  Res  Rust.  ([3,2,18;  3,16,3]) 
and  four  in  the  De  lying.  Lat.,  Livy  four  times  (9,19, 
7 — Miiller  here  omits  id  est — ;  10,8,10;  37,15;  21,10, 
8)  in  books  1-40,  Vitruvius  twelve  times  (see  Nohl's 
index),  Velleius  Paterculus  2,23,6;  48,4;  63,3;  Vale- 
rius Maximus  2,4,1;  6,6,5;  ^,T-Ext.2;  8,9,1;  and  Pe- 
tronius  offers  seven  instances  (see  Segebade  u.  Lom- 
matzsch  s.  v.)  while  none  of  these  writers  use  hoc  est. 

In  Caesar  and  Nepos  both  phrases  are  wanting. 
Sallust  alone  has  an  instance  of  hoc  est:  Jug.  31,20 
(in  an  oration)  uos  autem,  hoc  est  populus  Romanus 
. .  .  .satis  habeatis.  In  the  same  oration  in  §  26  id  est 
occurs.  The  occurrence  of  hoc  est  in  Catullus  83,6 
is  not  surprising  in  view  of  the  results  that  we  have 
reached  in  the  first  chapter. 

A  preference  on  the  part  of  the  writers  of  '  'Silver 
L<atin"  for  hie  over  is  makes  itself  felt  from  Seneca 
the  Elder  on,  in  the  reappearance  of  hoc  est  {cf.  Sen. 
Contr.  1,1,19).  Id  est  occurs  9,4,11  an  hie  pro  patria 
fecerit,  id  est:  an  illo  tempore. .  . . ;  cj.  io,/>r.  16;  Kxc. 
Contr.  7,7.  Ascon.  Ped.  in  Pisonianam  52  has  hoc  est, 
and  Seneca  in  De  Ben.,  De  Clem.,  Ad  Lucil.  returns 
to  the  later  Ciceronian  usage,  showing  44  (+  ?3)  cases 


58 


The  Latin  Pronouns. 


of  id  est.  In  De  Ben.,  De  Clem.,  and  Ad  Lucil.  1-25 
hoc  est  does  not  occur.  Pliny,  N.  H.  books  2,3,6-15, 
23-30  has  hoc  est  39  times,  id  est  20  times.  Fronti- 
nusf  De  Aquis  7  has  id  est;  De  Contr.  Agr.  p.  58,14 
(L)  hoc  est.  Quintilian  has  id  est:  3,7,15;  11,28;  9, 
4,80;  1,9,1;  5,49;  II. 12;  3,5.4;  5.10,86;  etc.;  hoc  est: 
3,7,1;  7,1,14;  8,2,20;  8,3,89  (a  citation  from  Cassius). 
Pliny's  Letters  show  id  est  nine  times,  hoc  est  five 
times;  Panegyr.  id  est  twice,  hoc  est  eight  times. 

The  following  conspectus  shows  the  attitude  of  the 
later  writers: 


ID    EST 

HOC    EST 

Balbus,  Ad.  Gels. 

page  100,10 

None. 

Hyginus  Grom.  De  Contr. 

Agr. 

9  times. 

None. 

•'            "      De     Gen. 

Con. 

S  times. 

None. 

"            "      De     Lim. 

Const. 

None. 

P,  i7°.4:  171.4- 

Siculus  Flaccus 

Over  five  times. 

Fronto  [M.  Aureli  uerba] 

p.  213  N. 

Gellius,  Noct.  Att. 

ca.  46  times. 

9  times. 

Florus 

10  times. 

"      De  Virg.  Or.  an  P. 

Once. 

Gaius 

At  least  29  times. 

Suetonius 

10  times. 

3  times. 

Aero  ad  Horat. 

3.5,23- 

3,5.24- 

"     "  Verr. 

3,116. 

Decretum  Commodi 

Once. 

Censor.  De  Die  Nat. 

16  times. 

5  times. 

Porphyr.  in  Horat. 

355  +  31  doubtful  or  spur- 

i; 79  +  12  doubtful  or  spur- 

ious. 

ious. 

Volus.  Maecianus 

11;    14;    15;  29;  46; 

;  6s6is; 

9;  10;    12;  13;  is;  tsguin- 

■]ibis:  72. 

quies;  69;   72;   73. 

Script.  Hist.  Aug. 

None. 

Hadr.  10,2;  Helius  2,6; 
5.4; 

None. 

Did,  8,9;  Pescen.  7,6; 

None. 

Ant.  P.  2,8;  7,3:  M.  Aur, 
5,5- 

Macrin.  8,4;  Max. 

112,4; 

None. 

28,8. 

Gord.  2,2;  3,2;  5; 

33.1- 

Gord.  3,3. 

Id  est  and  Hoc  est. 


59 


ID    EST 

HOC   BST 

Script.  Hist.  Aug. 

Avid.  Cas. 

[4,3-] 

Avid   Cas.  [3,7.] 

Gall.  11.3: 

2I,S- 

Gall,  6,2;  19,4. 

XXX  Tyr 

24.S; 

32,5- 

None. 

Heliogab.  4,2;  3; 

17.4- 

Heliogab,  24,3. 

Alex.  Sev. 

15,3;  45.6:  61,2 

.  do.  6,2;  25,7;  39,6, 

Aurelian  22 

,1. 

Aurelian  32,4. 

Frontinus 

p.  [16,4.] 

Agennus  Urbicus 

p.  17,21;  25,9, 

8,25:    23,24;     62,3;     63,12 

74,2;  77,7;  89,16. 

Eutropius 

One. 

None. 

Macrobius 

At  least  78 

times. 

Exc.  Bob.  V,  p.  651  bis. 

Boethius,  De  Consol. 

2,7/r.ii. 

De  Arith. 

Often. 

Often. 

••         De  Geom. 

Passim. 

Passim. 

Justinian,    Novellae    (Au- 

thentica) 

Passim. 

Passim. 

Cassiodorius 

At  least  15 

times. 

Once. 

Jordanes 

Passim. 

None. 

Schol.  Gronov.  in  Cic. 

30  times. 

p.  392,41;  397,29  (Orelli). 

Patristic  Literature: 

Min.  Fel. 

6. 

None. 

Tertullian 

20. 

None. 

Cyprian 

II. 

6. 

Arnobius 

10. 

Once. 

Lactantius 

II. 

Once. 

Firm.  Matern. 

8. 

4- 

Ambrosias 

8. 

4- 

Paulin.  Nolan.  1 

12. 

None. 

Augustin.  Epist. 

Often. 

Seldom. 

Lucifer  Car. 

None. 

?• 

S.  Silv.  Peri. 

"sescenties 

."2 

"raro."2 

Diaconi  Lib. 

116,5;  6;  13 

:  19; 

n8,6. 

None. 

Anton.  Plac.  It. 

None. 

184,3;    188,14:    19;    190,20; 
15;  (o;«.  C);  180,8;  163,7 

Adamanus 

224,11:  228,1;  229,5,  etc. 

Faustus 

II. 

Hoc  est  dicere  5. 

Plane.  Fulg. 

Often. 

Fulg.  Episc. 

Sup.  Theb. 

p.  182 

3;  5;  10; 

p.  183,9;  la- 

etc., 28 

times 

in   all. 

Alcimus  Avit. 

14. 

s' 

The  passages  from  the  De  Condic.  Agr.  are:  pp. 
114,8;  115,18  centuriae,  id  est  plinthides,  hoc  est  later- 


1  Epistulae  1-46. 
8  Geyer  in  indice. 


6o  TJie  Latbi  Pronouns. 

culi;  116,13;  25;  117,3;  120,8;  18;  122,16;  of  the  De 
Gen.Contr:  pp.  125,14;  132,17;  133,1;  [133.4];  i34.iO- 
In  the  case  of  the  De  Lim.  Const,  the  e\adence  con- 
firms the  view  of  a  separate  authorship  for  this  work 
and  for  the  De  Contr.  Agr.  and  the  De  Gen.  Contr. 
The  references  to  Si  cuius  Flaccus  are:  pp.  146,8;  154, 
20;  155,22;  161,19;  163,25.  Kalb,  Roms  Juristen  p.  75 
writes  concerning  Gains  ' '  Wohl  von  keinem  Juristen 
annahrend  so  haufig  wie  bei  G."  Et  hoc  est  quod 
uulgo  dicitur  occurs  often,  but  hoc  est  as  a  parenthet- 
ical explanative  seems  to  be  foreign  to  him.  In  Sue- 
tonius id  est  occurs:  Jul.  19;  '^6{bis)\  Oct.  26;  32;  88; 
Galb.  3;  Domit.  17;  frag.  p.  293;  305;  and  hoc  est: 
Tib.  24;  Galb.  8;  Vesp.  11.  In  Acro's  commentary 
in  Uerr.  there  are  at  least  five  further  instances. 
For  the  Decretum  Comm.  see  Bruns,  Fontes  p.  229,26. 
Hoc  est  is  found  in  Censorinus,  De  Die  Nat.  1,2;  8,6; 
13,3;  14,10;  22,14.  The  figures  for  Porphyrio  are 
based  on  Holder's  index  (1893).  On  Cassiodorius  see 
Bayr.  Gymn.  =  Blatt.  1898  (XXXIV), 559.  The  fig- 
ures for  the  Schol.  Gronov.  were  privately  communi- 
cated by  H.  Stangl  of  Munich. 

This  collection  of  examples  shows  that  from  PHny 
the  Elder  on  down  to  the  seventh  century  both  for- 
mulae were  current.  The  onXy  prominent  writers  to 
avoid  hoc  est  are:  Tacitus,  Florus,  Gains,  Macrobius 
and  Jordanes.  Id  est  always  remained  the  normal 
form  and  with  a  few  exceptions  the  one  more  fre- 
quently employed.  One  might  at  first  glance  be  led 
to  suppose  that  these  conditions  are  reflected  in  or 
confirmed  by  the  definition  "id  est  •  hoc  est"  in  GOtz, 
Corp.  Glos.  IV,  p.  350,27,  in  which  id  est  serves  as 


Id  est  a7id  Hoc  est.  6i 

lemma,  and  might  therefore  be  supposed  to  be  the 
more  frequent  expression.  Yet  the  examination  of  a 
number  of  glosses  of  the  same  collection  shows  that 
the  writer  (or  compiler)  did  not  necessaril}^  make  this 
distinction.  Many  definitions  appear  in  double  form. 
Thus  "ob  •  propter"  and  "propter  •  ob"  are  found, 
each  in  its  alphabetical  order.  The  translator  of  Jus- 
tinian's Novellae  felt  id  est  to  be  the  normal  form, 
since  in  translating  Touziirrc  he  uses  hoc  est,  but  writes 
id  est  when  not  under  such  influence,  e.g.,  in  trans- 
lating 3rj  (47,2/r.)  and  in  interpolating  an  explanation 
of  a  Greek  word  {2g,^pr.  =  p.  222,30  Scholl)  biocolytas 
(id  est  uiolentiarum  inhibitores).  (On  the  contrary 
Ignatius,  Epist.  ad  Phil.  12  interpolates  an  explana- 
tion of  dvriOeor  by  means  of  hoc  est.  Here  the  codex 
Petavianus  reads  id). 

The  final  triumph  of  hoc  est  is  testified  by  the  Ital- 
ian cioe  (<  ecce  +  hoc  +  est). 

To  show  how  very  close  the  words  approach  each 
other  in  meaning  and  usage,  it  is  only  necessary  to 
cite  a  few  parallel  passages.  For  Cicero  reference 
may  be  made  to  Klussmann,  Tulliana  (Progr.,  Gera, 
1887)  p.  6ff.,  who  cites  numerous  instances  without 
calling  attention  to  any  difference  in  meaning.  The 
distinction  with  Cicero  is,  as  we  have  seen  above,  in 
the  main  chronological  and  not  semasiological. 

PUny  the  Elder. 

2,84. .  .  .quam     diapason  26,103  . .  . .  phj^cos     tha- 

harmoniam  uocant,hoc  lassion,    id    est    fucus 

est  uniuersitatem  con-  marinus. 
centus. 


62 


The  Latin  Pronouns. 


11,266. ..  .nisi  quae  pul- 
monem  et  arterias  ha- 
beant,  hoc  est  nisi  quae 
Spirent. 

14,98  ... .  labrusca,  hoc 
est  uite  siluestri. 


2,218....  pulsum  uena- 
rum,  id  est  spiritus, 
magis  sentiunt. 

8,174. .  •  .^nnum,  id  est 
paruum  mulum. 

Numerous  similar  parallels  might  be   adduced  from 
PHny. 

Quintilian. 

8,2,20  a^javoijra,  hoc  est 
quae  uerbis  aperta  oc- 
cultos  sensus  habent. 


3,5,4 de     iure de 

re;  illud  rationale,  hoc 
legale  genus  Herma- 
goras  atque  eum  secuti 
uocant,  id  est  vajMixov  et 

Xoytxav. 


3,7,1 ...  .quod  genus  ui- 
detur  Aristoteles  atque 
eum  secutus  Theophra- 
stus  a  parte  negotiali, 
hoc  est  T.  pay  liar  IXTJ,  re- 
mouisse. 

Aulus  Gellius. 

19,1,18  rdc  roiaoTaq  (Pw^raaiaq^  id  est  uisa  istaec  animi 
SUi  terrifica,  non  adrobat,  hoc  est  oh  auyxararidsrai . .  . . ; 
5,12,5  'Marspater,'  hoc  enim  est  (r/".  17,8,2  id  enim 
est)  'Marspiter,'  itemque  louis  'Diespiter'  appellatus, 
id  est  diei  et  lucis  pater. 


Cyprian. 

De  Domenica  Oratione  17  quomodo  in  caelo,  id  est  in 
nobis  per  fidem  nostram  uoluntas  Dei  facta  est  ut  esse- 
mus  e  caelo,  ita  et  in  terra,  hoc  est  in  illis  creder*? 
;z^/^ntibus  fiat  uoluntas  Dei. 


Id  est  and  Hoc  est.  63 

Ambrosius,  Exameron. 

i,i,i(B)  artificem  ad  ex-  i,7,25(i3F)    materia,     id 

emplar,  hoc  est  ideam  est  Zk-q^  sicut  philoso- 

intendentem.  phi  dicunt. 

Censorinus,  De  Die  Nat. 
1,2  roiv /jt^ffwv,  hoc  est. .  . .  18,12    pentaeteridas . .  . , 

media.  id  est  IV  annorum  cir- 

cuitus. 
Macrobius,  Som.  Scip.  i,         Emiius,  Sac.  Hist,  apiid 
3,y  (pavraaij-a  uero,  hoc  Eactant.   Inst.   1,11,46 

est  uisum.  ZAN  J{FO NOT  id  est  La- 

tine  luppiter  Satunii. 

Priscillian. 
6,107  =  p.  79,8  ex  agnis  et  haedis,  idest  ex  duobus 
in  uniim  hominem  nouum  corporis  et  spiritus  castifica- 
tione  suscepta  pascha  domini  et  pascha  nostrum,  hoc 
est  Chris tus  in  homine  et  homo  inueniatur  in  Christo; 
p.  102,9  (cf.  Psalm  59,11)  circumuersa  mundi  ||  Greek, 
Ttepio/^j;  varia  lectio  circumstantia  I|  idest  perfidiae  terra 
uincatur  ut  calciamento  pedum  domini,  hoc  est  Euan- 
gelio  pacis  ostenso  distruatur  Dagon. 

Macrobius. 
Sat.   1,23,7   siue    ano   ruu   da:o;iivou,  id   est   xacufiivou^  seu 
and  TOO  daiofiivuu^  hoc  est  [xepiZofJ-ivou. 
Som.  Scip.  1,5,17  in  numeros  pariter  pares,  hoc  est  in 
bis  quaterna,  ut . .  . .  in    numeros  aeque  pariter  pares 
diuisio  quoque  ipsa  soluatur,  id  est  bis  bina  bis. 

L,ex  Romana  Visigothorum. 
(Gai  Inst.  Tit.   8,3),  p.  332  (Haenel)  agnati  sunt  per 
uirilem  sexum. .  .  .coniuncti,  id   est  consanguinei  fra- 


64  The  Latin  Pronoims. 

tres,  hoc  est,  de  uno  patre  nati.  item  patruus,  id 
est,  f rater  patris,  fratris  sui  filio  agnatus  est.  ipso 
modo  sunt  fratres  patrueles,  hoc  est,  qui  etc. 
Similar  parallels  are  of  frequent  occurrence  and  it  is 
apparent  that  in  many  instances  the  writer  has  aimed 
only  to  secure  variety  of  expression. 

The  chief  uses  of  id  (hoc)  est  are  the    following: 

1.  To    translate    a    foreign    word.     Examples 

above.     Add  Tac.  Ger.  40. 

2.  To  give  the  application   of   a  metaphorical 

expression.     Varro,  Res  Rust.  3,4,1. 

3.  To  explain  a  I^atin  expression  by 

a)  giving  a  more  familiar  syno- 
nym.    Varro,  Res.  Rust.  2,4,17    f rendere . .  . . id    est 

frangere. 

b)  i)  stating  all  its  component 

parts.  Auct.  ad  Heren.  //.  cc.  Cic.  De  Re  Pub.  3,6 
quare  qui  utrumque  uoluit  et  potuit,  id  est  ut  cum 
maiorum  institutis  tum  doctrina  se  instrueret .... 

2)  vice  versa  stating  a  com- 
mon characteristic  of  a  number  of  particulars  men- 
tioned. Cic.  Laelius  65  simplicem  praeterea  et 
communem  et  consentientem,  id  est,  qui  rebus  isdem 
moveatur,  eligi  par  est. 

c)  stating  one  or  more  of  the 
component  parts  either  i)  any  chance  one  cited  to 
illustrate  the  general  expression:  Varro,  De  lying. 
Lat.  5,93  artificibus  maxima  causa  {sc.  nominandi)  ars, 
id  est,  ab  arte  medicina  ut  sit  medicus  dictus;  so  10,40, 
where  the  formula  approaches  exempli  gratia  in  mean- 
ing,                               or      2)  that    element    which    is 


Id  est  and  Hoc  est.  65 

especially  appropriate  to  the  context,  and  to  which  the 
writer  directs  particular  attention:  Tac.  Dial.  3,21; 
gextr;  22,8..  .  .orationibus,  quas  iam  senior  et  iuxta 
finem  uitae  composuit,  id  est,  postquam  magis  profe- 
cerat,  usuque  et  experimentis  didicerat  quod  optimum 
dicendi  genus  esset.  3)  This  often  takes  the  form 

of  a  correction  of  a  general  statement:  Plin.  Nat. 
Hist.  2,131;  Cic.  Ad  Fam.  14,2,3  quod  de  domo  scri- 
bis,  hoc  est  de  area. .  . . 

d)  combining  with  a  synony- 
mous expression  a  statement  of  the  ground  (Cic.  De 
Leg.  2,27)  or  purpose  (object  to  be  attained)  for  an 
action:  Varro,  Res  Rust.  3,9,2 ...  .ornithoboscion 
instituere  uolt,  id  est  adhibita  scientia  ac  cura  ut  capi- 

ant  magnos  fructus. 

e)  correcting  a  false  application 

(intended  to  deceive)  of  a  word  by  some  other  person. 
The  implication  is  usually  "A  or  B  call  it  so  and  so, 
but  if  we  should  strip  it  of  its  fair  appellation,  we 
should  find  it  in  reality  to  be  so  and  so ' '  {cf.  Kluss- 
mann,  Tulliana):  Cic.  Verr.  3, 67.... cum  appari- 
toribus,  id  est  cum  ui  ac  minis  (Miiller  reads  eo  for 
id  est);  Milo.  24....  ad  praeturam  gerendam,  hoc  est 
ad  euertendam  rem  publicam,  plenum  annum  et  inte- 
grum.    In  the  reverse  order  in  Verr.  5,114. 

It  seems  desirable  at  this  point  to  call  attention  to 
the  difference  between  id  est  and  idque.  They  are 
not  discriminated  with  sufficient  care  in  Gudeman's 
note  on  Tac.  Dial.  3,21  (in  his  larger  edition  p.  78). 
''In  Germ.  40  id  est  —  'that  is  to  say'.  In  other  pas- 
sages Tacitus  uses  'idque':  Ann.  IV,  11;  39;  XIII, 45." 
The   essential   difference   between    Germ.  40  and  the 


66  The  Latin  Pronoims. 

passages  Dial.  3,21;  gextr;  22,8  is  clear  from  the 
preceding  analysis.  Idque  in  the  passages  cited 
introduces  (like  xa\  rdbra)  words  which  describe  the 
circumstances  under  which  an  action  takes  place. 
These  are  usually  quite  surprising  or  contrary  to 
expectation  (hence  not  usually  implied  in  the  term 
preceding  idque,  while  with  id  est,  etc.,  the  definition 
is  rarely,  if  ever,  contrary  to  what  would  be  expected), 
and  to  them  especial  importance  is  attached.  They 
are  in  no  wise  to  be  regarded  as  a  definition  or  a  trans- 
lation of  the  first  term,  such  as  are  introduced  by  id 
est,  hoc  est,  quod  est  {<j  iariv). 

^.     Ad  id  and  ad  hoc. 

In  each  of  these  phrases  two  meanings  are  to  be 
distinguished.  They  are  used  to  express  purpose  and 
as  an  equivalent  to  praeterea.  In  the  latter  sense  ad 
hoc  is  used  to  the  almost  entire  exclusion  of  ad  id. 
Sallust,  in  whose  works  it  makes  its  first  appearance, 
was  especially  fond  of  it  (Constans,  De  Serm.  Sail. 
p.  132  "Peculiari  amore  dilexit  ac  saepissime  usurpa- 
vit,  quam  locutionem  Lawsius  parum  recte  contendit 
antiquorum  imitationem  redolere").  Certain  pecul- 
iarities of  Sallust' s  usage  are  possibly  due  to  the 
development  of  his  style.  In  his  Bellum  Catulinae, 
his  earliest  work,  it  is  in  five  cases  (A)  correlated  with 
other  adverbial  expressions:  37  primum  omnium — 
delude — praeterea — praeterea — ad  hoc — ;  14,3  prae- 
terea— ad  hoc — postremo — ;  17,4  praeterea — ad  hoc — 
praeterea — ;  21,4  praeterea — ad  hoc — ;  30,6  ad  hoc — 
itemque — .  (B)  Not  thus  correlated  it  stands  four 
times:  26,4;  31,3;  44,6;  53,3.     In  the  Bellum  Jugur- 


Ad  id  and  Ad  hoc.  67 

thinum  the  latter,  more  independent  usage  predomi- 
nates (6,1;  67,1;  85,4;  89,5;  96,2;  102,6),  there  being 
only  three  instances  of  the  former:  6,3;  75,5;  111,2 
primo — praeterea — ad  hoc — denique — ;  the  first  two 
having  praeterea — ad  hoc — ,  while  ad  hoc — ad  hoc — is 
used  in  31,28.  In  his  maturest  work,  the  Histories, 
only  (B)  occurs.  In  group  (A)  it  is  used  either  to  in- 
troduce a  substantive  or  an  entire  sentence,  the  former 
invariably  extended  by  an  adjectival  modifier,  which 
is  usually  a  relative  clause.  In  group  (B)  it  is  not 
until  the  Bellum  Jugurthinum  that  Sallust  uses  the 
phrase  to  introduce  a  substantive.  So  2,2  igitur  prae- 
clara  facies,  magnae  diuitiae,  ad  hoc  uis  corporis  et 
alia  omnia  huiuscemodi  breui  dilabuntur,  at .... ;  cf. 
17,6.  This  is  the  only  usage  which  occurs  in  the  His- 
tories (Orat.  Phil.  21;  Fr.  Hist.  3,77,7  <  ad  hoc  >  a 
generally  accepted  conjecture  of  Kreysig,  entirely  con- 
forms to  the  Sallustian  usage).  A  transitional  type  is 
Jug.  91.5- 

Nepos  does  not  use  the  phrase,  but  it  again  finds 
favor  with  lyivy,  and  was  extensively  used  by  later 
writers,  especially  by  the  historians  Velleius  Pater- 
culus,  Curtius  (at  least  eight  cases),  Tacitus  (eight  oc- 
currences), Suetonius  and  Florus  (twelve  times),  as 
also  by  Pliny  the  Younger.  The  phrase  is  especially 
appropriate  to  narration  and  description. 

In  books  i-io,  21-40  of  lyivy's  History  (thirty- 
eight  instances  in  all)  it  is  in  no  single  instance  (40,25, 
4  is  not  to  the  point)  correlated  with  praeterea  or  an- 
other adverbial  expression.  It  occurs  both  as  intro- 
ducing entire  sentences  (2,23,4;  6,12,6;  20,8;  9,24,6; 
21,54.8;  55,7;  23,32,9;  28,35,2;  44,2;  5;  29,26,8;  30, 


68  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

17,14;  32,17,15;  33,4,4;  9,11;  35,12,11;  38,5,5;  39, 
53,4;  40,25,4)  and  substantives  (2,59,11;  5,16,2;  8,12' 
4;  23,22,3;  28,14,17;  29,4,6;  31,40,10;  33,19,10;  34, 
52,6;  36,40,12;  37,23,2;  38,17,4;  39,5,16).  Rather 
loosely  connected  with  the  preceding  words  and  form- 
ing a  kind  of  after-thought  attached  to  the  completed 
sentence  are  7,12,2  and  particularly  30,34,1,  in  which 
the  added  element  may  be  regarded  as  a  distinct  sen- 
tence with  its  verb  suppressed  for  rhetorical  effect. 
Our  Paduan  historian  somewhat  extends  the  func- 
tions of  the  phrase.  He  uses  it  to  introduce  an 
adjective  (21,52,10  sparsos  et  incompositos,  ad  hoc 
grauis  praeda  plerosque. .  .  .)and  a  participle  (21,31,11 
....  amnis  ....  pluribus  ....  alueis  fluens, ....  ad  hoc 
saxa  glareosa  uoluens  nihil. .  .  .tutum. .  .  .praebet;  40, 
9 . .  . .  debilitati . .  . . ;  ad  hoc  praeusti  artus . .  . . ;  cf.  6, 
11,6;  32,17,15.)  With  him  the  substantive  is  rarely 
modified  by  a  relative  clause,  and  in  one  passage  (an 
extremely  rare  case)  the  substantive  stands  entirely 
alone  (28,14,17).  In  Sallust  the  grammatical  form  of 
the  member  introduced  by  ad  hoc  corresponds  to  that 
of  the  preceding  member.  IJivy  boldly  varies  the  con- 
struction: 6,11,6..  . .  inflato  animo,  ad  hoc  uitio  quoque 
ingenii  uehemens  et  inpotens. .  . . ;  5,16,2  multis  simul 
bellis,  Uolscorum ....  Aequorum . .  . .  ad  hoc  Ueientique 
et  Falisco bello  occupatos;  33, 19, 10 cum  classe 

.  .  . .  ad  hoc  leuioribus  nauigii In  certain  pas- 
sages Ivivy  seemed  to  feel  that  this  formula  was  not 
sufl&ciently  strong  to  meet  his  needs  and  has  supported 
it  by  etiam  (33,9,11)  and  quoque  {s2iprd).  In  23,22,3 
it  seems  to  be  scarcely  stronger  than  simple  et.     The 

formula  itself,  however,  serves  as  conjunction  and  is 


Ad  id  a?id  Ad  hoc.  69 

not,  like  praeterea  (in  Bell.  Afr.  19,1;  25,2;  50,2;  Afra- 
nius  72),  supported  by  et  or  que  (as  Caes.  Bell.  Gall.  3, 
17,3;  Bell.  Civ.  2,35,5;  3.96, i)  or  used  with  the  cor- 
relatives cum ....  turn  (as  in  Cicero) . 

In  the  letters  and  Panegyricus  of  Pliny  (fifteen 
cases)  we  find  a  return  to  the  Sallustian  usage  praete- 
rea— ad  hoc.  He  has  further  9,26,8 f.  et  rursus — et 
statim — . .  . .  ex  eadem  nota — simile  his — et  ibidem — 
et — et  deinceps — ad  hoc — et  mille  talia ....  New  is  the 
order:  ad  hoc — praeterea  (2,11,10).  He  employs  pre- 
dominantly the  substantive,  and  was  particularly  fond 
of  the  sentences  like  I^ivy  30,34,1.  So:  2,14,1  raro 
incidit  {sc.  causa)..  .  .insignis.  ad  hoc  pauci  {sc.  nunc 
causas  agunt)  cum  quibus  iuuet  dicere;  2,11,10  con- 
spectus augustissimus  fuit.  princeps  praesidebat:  erat 
enim  consul,  ad  hoc  lanuarius  mensis . .  . . celeberri- 
mus;  Pan.  'j'jm  ad  hoc  tam  adsiduus . .  . . ut;  i,  22,4 
ad  hoc  quam  parens  {sc.  fuit) . .  . . ;  6,33,4. 

The  Tacitean  examples  are  with  a  single  exception 
found  in  the  Annals.  The  only  peculiarity  he  shows 
in  his  usage  of  the  phrase  lies  in  the  order  of  the 
words  in  Hist.  1,6,10  multi  ad  hoc  numeri  e  Ger- 
mania  ac  Britannia  et  Illyrico,  quos. .  . . ,  which,  with 
Ann.  12,20,5,  offers  the  type  of  lyivy  30,34,1.  Ad 
hoc  postpositive,  of  which  I  can  cite  only  the  two 
further  examples  Floras  1,24(2, 8),  16  elephantis  ad 
hoc  inmensae  magnitudinis . .  . . ;  Suetonius,  Nero  46, 
I  terrebatur  ad  hoc  euidentibus  portentis ....  is  quite 
possibly  due  to  the  influence  of  the  analogous  use  of 
praeterea.  The  main  verb  precedes  it  in  Cic.  Sex. 
Rose.  100  Audio  praeterea. .  . . ;  De  I^eg.  Agr.  2,32  dat 
praeterea. .  . . ;  Cluent.  81  accusatus  est  praeterea. .  . . 


yo  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

Praeterea  in  Cicero  and  Caesar  is,  in  fact,  as  often 
postpositive  as  it  is  initial.  The  order  Adjective- 
praeterea-Substantive  (as  above)  was  an  especial  favor- 
ite (so  Cic.  Verr.  2,170  multarum  praeterea  ciuitatum 
....  Numerous  examples  in  Merguet's  Lexica):  so 
also  Verr.  5,34  cuiusquam  pr.  dedecus;  Sex.  Rose. 
133  quid  pr.  caelati  argenti  and  even  Verr.  2,120 
quod  enim  iste  pr.  genus.  In  all  other  cases  Tacitus 
uses  ad  hoc  to  introduce  an  entire  sentence  12,34,1; 

13.34.14;  14.24.3;  31.15;   15.4.5;    38.13- 

Florus  like  Livy,  is  fond  of  breaking  the  monotony 

of  the  exact  grammatical  conformity  of  the  expres- 
sions preceding  and  following  ad  hoc.  Examples  are: 
1,45(3, 10), 25  ciuitatem,  uallo  sudibus  et  fossa  induc- 
toque  fossae  flumine,  ad  hoc  XVIII  casteUis ....  cir- 
cumdatam. .  .  .domuit;  2, 21(4, 11), 5  quippe  a  senis  in 
nouenos  remorum  ordines,  ad  hoc  turribus  atque  tabu- 
latis  adleuatae. .  .  .ferebantur. 

The  two  following  correlations  are  new:  2,13(4,2), 
40  nunc — nunc — ad  hoc — iam  uero;  2, 13(4, 2), 91  ad 
hoc — nouissime — ,  to  which  may  be  added  from  Pau- 
linus  of  Nola,  Epist.  5,4(p.  27,13-17)  praeterea — ad 
hoc — postea  denique ....  The  other  instances  from 
Florus  (he  does  not  use  ad  id  =■  praeterea  nor  ad  hoc 
to  express  purpose)  are  1,7(13), 4;  24(2, 8), 3;  (2,8), 16 
(postpositive);  34(2, 18),  10;  (2, 19), 3;  38(3,3),  13;  2,21 
(4,11), 6. 

Of  the  synonymous  expressions,  hoc  amplius  was 
the  most  extensively  used.  Super  haec  found  favor 
with  both  Phnys  (see  Nat.  Hist.  3,138;  7,98  and  Epist. 
8,4,2;  4,26,2).  Ad  haec  occurs  from  Curtius  to  Boe- 
thius.     Ad  hue  (with  which  adde  hue  could  easily  be 


Ad  id  and  Ad  hoc.  7 1 

confused,  especially  when  the  following  words  were 
neuters)  is  very  close  to  ad  hoc  in  Sen.  Nat.  Quaest. 
4,8  (other  examples  in  Goelzer,  Grammaticae  in  Sulp. 
Sev.  Quaest.  p.  92,  Anm.  4),  but  ultimately  became  so 
weakened  that  Cj^prian,  Ad  Dem.  12  could  write  adhuc 
insuper,  and  Alcimus  Avitus,  Contr.  Kut.  Her.  I,  p. 
25,15. ..  .habemus  hie  adhuc  amplius,  quod  mirari 
oportet. 

Ad  hoc  accedere  {cf.  Bell.  Hisp.  41  tum  praeterea 
accedebat)  and  the  like  do  not,  strictly  speaking, 
belong  here. 

When  ad  id  is  used  in  this  sense,  it  is  followed,  so 
far  as  I  know,  by  the  relative  quod,  so  that  ad  id 
quod  —  praeter  id  quod. 


To  express  purpose  both  phrases  are  extensively 
employed.  The  rivalry  between  them  had  not  appar- 
ently begun  in  Cicero.  In  Verr.  3,188;  De  Re  Pub. 
1,58  hoc  retains  its  full  force  as  ■KpturdzpiTov,  while  ad 
id  is  used  by  him  normally  with  the  relative  quod. 
Neither  Caesar  nor  Varro  have  ad  hoc,  although 
Caesar,  Bell.  Civ.  1,81  has  ad  id  expeditiores  (cor- 
rected by  Faern  to  ad  iter),  and  Varro,  Res  Rust.  2pr,^ 
ad  id  {i.  e.,  ad  agrum  stercorandum)  pecus  adpositum, 
Nepos  has  neither.  So  the  rivalry  between  the  two 
phrases  begins  with  lyivy.  Aside  from  1,8,4  ^^  id 
hominum  and  2,3,6;  4,54,5,  in  which  cases  it  is  fol- 
lowed by  the  relative  quod,  ad  id  occurs  in  I^ivy 
(books  I- 10)  about  sixteen  times.  Ad  id  regularly 
completes  the  meaning  of  a  past  passive  participle, 
e.  g.,  1,10,5  fabricato  ad  id  apte  ferculo;  4,37,4  ad  id 


72  The  Lati7i  Pro7iouns. 

missi;  7,39,14  qui  ad  id  missi  erant;  5,24,4  trium- 
iiirique  ad  id  creati;  7,12,9  ad  id  accitus;  9,13,2  dato 
ad  id  signo;  9, 26, 16  ad  id  parum  potentes.  The  intru- 
sion of  hoc  in  such  contexts  is  seen  by  comparing  any 
of  the  above  passages  with  1,47,9  ahi  iam  ante  ad  hoc 
praeparati.  Parallel  are  also  5,52,11  collegium  ad  id 
{i.  e.,  for  celebrating  newly  introduced  religious  ser- 
vices) nouum  ....  condidimus  and  4,34,6  nee. .  .  .lato 
satis  ad  hoc  (/.  e.,  ut  classi  pugnari  possit)  amne.  In 
2,42,5  and  40,48,4  id  and  hoc  respectively  are  strength- 
ened by  ipsum.  Contrary  to  what  might  be  expected, 
if  hoc  retained  its  full  force,  ad  hoc  does  not  in  L/ivy 
look  forward,  as  does  ad  id  (see  6,42,1;  7,30,4  ad  id 
ualere,  ut....),  to  a  following  clause.  This  usage 
occurs,  however,  in  Pliny  the  Elder,  books  9,13,23-30, 
and  it  finds  application  not  only  as  in  Livy  in  conjunc- 
tion with  the  participium  passivum  (9,122  ad  hoc 
product?/^;  29,34  detonsam)  or  activum  (9,77  ad  hoc 
suSicientibus)  and  adjectiva  (28,42  efficaciorem  ad  hoc), 
but  also  (with  the  indicative  as  well  as  the  participle) 
prepares  the  way  for  a  following  ut  or  ne  (9,182  ad  hoc 
prodest,  ne....;  27,146  ad  hoc  parens,  ut....).  In 
10,1  ad  hoc.  .  .datis  pinnis,  ad  hoc  =  praeterea.  In 
these  books  ad  id  occurs  but  three  times  (12,63  porta 
ad  id  una  patente;  15,26  optima  laurus  ad  id  latifolia 
siluestris;  28,193  efficacior  ad  id),  always  refering  to 
what  precedes  {cf.  9,86  ad  ea).  Pliny's  preference  for 
ad  hoc  may  be  compared  with  his  preference  for  hoc 
est  noted  above.  Conversely  he  uses  ob  id  more 
freely  than  ob  hoc  (see  below). 

Curtius  appears  not  to  have  used  ad  id,  but  resem- 
bles Pliny  in  the  use  of  ad  hoc,  e.  g.,  4,8,4  ad  hoc 


Ob  id  7ind  Ob  hoc.  73 

{sc.  ut  claustra  Nili  fluminis  tueatur  Polemon)  XXX 
triremes  datae;  5,5,22  C  ad  hoc  electi  sunt;  8,1,12 
spatiosas  ad  hoc  (z.  e.,  ad  feras  uenandas)  eligunt 
siluas.  Tacitus  shows  a  decided  preference  for  ad  id 
to  express  purpose.  It  occurs  Ann.  1,81,7  suam  ad  id 
curam;  Hist.  2,22,9  contra  praetoriani  dispositos  ad 
id  ipsum  molares. .  .  .prouoluunt.  Agr.  38,15  datae 
ad  id  uires. 

Florus  has  no  instance  of  ad  id  expressing  pur- 
pose (neither  does  he  use  ad  id  =  praeterea) .  In  2 , 1 7 
(4,7),  13  he  uses  in  id  missus  for  ad  id  missus, 

Later  writers  use  both  forms.  In  general  ad  hoc 
is  more  common  in  the  patristic  literature. 

Ad  hoc  looking  forward  to  a  following  clause  (con- 
secutive) takes  on  the  meaning  of  tarn  (ita),  as  in 
lyucifer  Caralitanus,  De  Reg.  Apost.  7(=  p.  51,22)  ad 
hoc  sis  post  tanta  funera  tua  superbus,  ut  aut  audiens 
nos  Dei  sacerdotes  temet  conuertas  ad  Deum. 

5.      Ob  id  a?id  ob  hoc. 

According  to  Reissinger,  Ueber  Bedeutung  und 
Verwendung  der  Prapositionen  ob  und  propter  in 
iilteren  Latein  p.  42  these  two  expressions  occur  for 
the  first  time  in  Cicero;  in  the  orations  only  ob  hoc 
(Caecin.  73  o  rem  praeclarum  uobisque  ob  hoc  reti- 
nendum,  recuperatores  ||  hoc  omit.  Tegernseensis  || ),  in 
the  philosophical  writings  only  ob  id  (always  strength- 
ened by  ipsum,  and  in  De  Fin.  3,63;  Tusc.  Disp. 
1, 11;  13;  5,95  looking  forward  to  quia  or  quod).  In 
De  L,eg.  2,12  id  is  a  conjecture  of  Lambin.  In  Ad 
Fam.  1,9,16  ob  id  ipsum  is  taken  up  by  in  quo. .  . . 
superasset.     Sallust  has    et  ob  id  Fr,   Hist.  1,77,18 


74  ^-^^  Latvi  Pronouns. 

{=  Oral.  Phil.  i8)  and  in  no  other  instance.  No  other 
prose  writer  earlier  than  I^ivy  uses  the  phrases.  Ovid, 
Met.  12,91  has  ob  hoc,  and  Horace,  Ars  Poet.  393 
ob  hoc. 

As  in  the  case  of  ad  id  and  ad  hoc,  so  with  the 
present  formulae,  the  frequent  use  begins  with  I^ivy. 
In  books  i-io,  21-40  ob  id  occurs  thirteen  times 
(+ob  ea  three  times),  ob  hoc  five  times  (+ ob  haec 
eighteen  times).  Livy,  however,  distinguishes  care- 
fully in  usage  between  these  two  words.  In  all  but 
two  instances  (25,16,3,  where  ob  rests  on  conjecture 
[cf.  Fleckeisens  Jahrb.  1881,  683],  and  34,42,6  et  cum 
ob  id  se  pro  ciuibus  Romanis  ferrent)  ob  id  is  used  to 
modify  an  adjective  (including  participles):  5,29,3  se- 
gnius  ob  id  ipsum;  21,47,1  et  ob  id  aptos;  25,13,7  cas- 
tigatus;  23,13  ob  id  ipsum  intentius;  35,7  quietis;  26, 
13,6  diminuto;  28,2,2  occulta;  31,31,16  plures  ob  id 
ipsum;  34,55,1  indictarum;  37,24,5  celerius;  39,19.5 
fraudi  esset.  Ob  ea  is  similarly  used  8,15,5;  40, i, 5- 
Ea,  however,  in  40,45,7  has  a  definite  antecedent,  pro- 
digia.  Ob  hoc  on  the  contrary  is  used  only  with  the 
non-adjectival  forms  of  the  verb:  25,37,17  ob  hoc  cum 
omnia  neglecta  apud  hostes  essent;  30,30,28  non  nihil 
etiam  ob  hoc,  quia. .  . . ;  34,4,15  ne  ob  hoc  ipsum  cou- 
temnantur;  50,4  acclamarunt  gratias  se  inter  cetera 
etiam  ob  hoc  agere,  quod;  39,4,7  donee  consuli  ob  hoc 
(proleptic)  ipsum  moranti  Romam  redire  libitum  esset. 
Ob  haec  stands  almost  invariably  at  the  beginning  of 
a  sentence,  and  refers  to  the  content  of  the  preceding 
sentence:  1,40,5  after  three  reasons  are  stated  they 
are  summed  up  by  ob  haec  ipsi  regi  insidiae  parantur. 
3,53,2  ob   haec   iis  aduenientibus  gratiae  actae.     21, 


Ob  id  and  Ob  hoc.  75 

53,11  cum  ob  haec  taliaque  speraret  {cf.  8,23,3  ob  haec 
cum);  9,45,8  ob  haec  uolgo  in  conciliis  iactata;  37,48, 
4  ob  haec  Aetolos  sustulisse  animos  et  adnuisse  impe- 
rata  facere;  5,51,1  et  ob  eadem  haec;  9,38,9;  10,21, 
13;  21,50,11;  63,5;  27,30,1;  28,39,13    gratias    actum 

legatos misit;    32,22,12;    35,13,10;   37,34,8. 

The  only  exception  seems  to  be  28,39,15  non  grates 
tantum  ob  haec  agere  iussi  sumus,  sed. .  . . ,  since  in 
10,31,8  libri  ob  haec  aditi,  the  word  haec  refers  to  a 
definite  antecedent, 

Seneca  the  Rhetorician  in  his  use  of  ob  id  has  kept 
closer  to  the  correlative  use  of  id  by  employing  it  only 
(he  reads  elsewhere  id  ipsum)  when  followed  by  a 
causal  or  substantive  quia-  or  quod-clause  (twelve 
cases:  Con tr.  1,1,13;  14;  4)6;  8,7;  2,1,20;  2,3,11;  ii\bis\ 
9,1,9;  10,5,15;  Exc.  Contr.  1,1).  Ob  hoc  (ob  hoc 
ipsum  four  times)  is  always  used  with  a  verbal  form, 
nine  times  with  damnare,  accusare  and  petere  (Contr, 
i,i/r.  1,8,15  II  ob  hoc  MSS.  ab  hoc  corr.  W.  Miiller  ||  ; 
2,1,34;  2,6,4;  S^''";  1,^,^2>bis;  9,5.8;  10,3,10  <  ob  > 
hoc  II  ob  suppl.  W.  Miiller  ||  ;  11  ob  <  hoc  >,  Exc, 
Contr.  4,3  ob  hoc  quod;  4,5  ob  hoc  maxime  quia; 
1,7,14  ob  hoc  ipsum  quod;  7,2,12  ob  hoc  ipsum  quod; 
10,2,17  ob  hoc  ipsum,  without  quod;  9,1,6  ob  hoc 
uidelicet  ipsum  ut, ,  . ,). 

Valerius  Maximus  (4,1,7  ne  ob  id;  8,1,12  cum  ob 
id;  et  ob  id  occurs:  2,10,7  (the  codices  L,aur.  and  Bern, 
omit  the  et  in  this  passage);  5,9,3;  6,1,7;  7,3-^-*'^^'', 
10;  ?>,i^Exter,i;  (^.-^Exter,-^  and  Veil.  Paterc.  2,112,2 
show  only  ob  id.  Curtius  agrees  with  lyivy  in  using 
ob  id  with  Adjectives  and  Participles,  and  ob  hoc  with 
the  non-adjectival  forms  of  the  verb:  4,16,7  maiore  et 


y6  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

ob  id  tutiore  circuitu;  8,14,19  humo  lubrica  et  ob  id 
impediente;  4,16,23  auidiim  certaminis  et  ob  id  ipsum 
incautius;  4,10,22  nepos  paruulus,  ob  id  ipsum  misera- 
bilis,  quod. .  . . ;  4,14,4  ob  id  ipsum,  quod  ignoti  essent, 
ignobiles  esse;  7,2,2  horum  ob  id  ipsum  melior  est 
causa,  quod  ego  ....  suspectus  sum;  3,5,9  laxataque 
uis  morbi  ob  hoc  solum  uidebatur,  quia  magnitudinem 
mali  sentiebat;  6,3,13. .  .  .Dareum  ob  hoc  uicimus,  ut 
seruo  eius  traderemus  imperium;  4,10,31  ob  haec  ipsa 
{i.  e.  conditions  just  described)  amantis  animus  in 
sollicitudinem  suspicionemque  reuolutus  est;  9,8,240b 
haec.  In  10,5,5  id  is  adjectival.  The  single  instance 
of  ob  ea  is  6,8,3,  a  very  unusual  passage. 

Pliny,  Nat.  Hist.,  books  2,  3,  6-15,  23-30,  has  ob 
id  over  fifty  times,  ob  hoc  fifteen  times.  Typical  illus- 
trations of  his  usage  are:  Ob  id:  i)  with  Adjectives: 
7,104  ob  id. .  .  .utilis;  11,41  ob  id. ..  .simile;  11,249 
ob  id..  ..pernicibus;  9,9  Tiberio  principi  nuntiauit 
Olisiponensium  legatio  ob  id  (proleptic)  missa  uisum 
auditumque  in  quodam  specu  concha  canentem  Tri- 
tonem;  2)  with  Verbs:  2,43  captus. .  .  .traditus;  espe- 
cially with  verbs  of  naming:  uocare  (9,38;  109;  12,54), 
appellare  (11,244),  cognominare  (7,68;  8,33  ob  idque); 
15,13.       Ob  hoc:    9,89    consectantibus;    8,42    magna 

his  libido  {sc.  est) et  ob  hoc ira;   11,99  appella- 

tus;  2,146  quae  ob  hoc  fingitur.  Ob  hoc  occurs  also 
8,109;  122;  10,17;  212;  11,198;  13,28  <?/«/.;  et  ob  hoc: 
12,45;  ob  hoc  ipsum:  9,75.  Both  ob  id  and  ob  hoc  are 
used  by  decided  preference  with  the  non-adjectival 
forms  of  the  verb. 

Frontinus  has  nothing  new  to  tell  us. 

Pliny  the  Younger  uses  ob  hoc  exclusively,  once 


Ob  id  and  Ob  hoc.  77 

looking  backward  (5,19,6  sanguinem  reiecit  adque  ob 
hoc  in  Aegyptum  missus  a  me . .  . . ) ,  in  all  other  in- 
stances pointing  to  a  following  quod  (causal),  ne  or  ut. 
The  instances  are  4,8,4  te  quidem,  ut  scribis,  ob  hoc 
maxime  delectat  auguratus  mens,  quod....;  6,1,2 
reuertar,  uel  ob  hoc  solum,  ut  experiar  an. .  . . ;  7,3,3 
tenipus  est  te  reuisere  moles tias  nostras,  uel  ob  hoc 
solum,  ne....;  7,7,2  te  negotiis  distinere  ob  hoc 
moleste  fero,  quod. .  .  .non  potes;  Ad  Traian.  29(38), 2 
ipse  enim  dubito  ob  hoc  maxime,  quod. .  . .;  75(79), 2 
quod  in  notitiam  tuam  perferendum  existimaui  ob  hoc 
maxime,  ut....;  49(53),!  est  aedes  uetustissima 
Matris  Magnae  aut  reficienda  aut  transferenda;  ob  hoc 
praecipue,  quod. .  . . 

Tacitus  has  only  ob  id  (since  he  writes  ob  haec 
instead  of  ob  hoc)  and  this  only  in  the  Annals  {cf. 
WolfBin,  Phil.  XXV,XXVI, XXVII):  3,42,9  lulius 
Indus ....  discors  Floro  et  ob  id  nouandae  operae  aui- 
dior;  3,75,9  sed  Labeo  incorrupta  libertate,  et  ob  id 
fama  celebratior;  6,9,8  seu  composer  at  quaedam  in 
Gaium  Caesarem  ut  impudicum,  sine  ficto  habita  fides, 
atque  ob  id  conuictu  principis  prohibitus  cum . .  . . ; 
6,8,2  ausus  est. .  .  .M.  Terentius,  ob  id  reus,  amplecti 
{sc.  Seiani  amicitiam);  6,25,12  actae  ob  id  grates  de- 
cretumque  {sc.  est);  14,60,7  actae  ob  id  de  ancillis 
quaestiones. .  . . ;  2,35,4  Piso. .  .  .ob  id  magis  agendas 

(ysc.  res)   censebat,  ut ;   2,66,9  Csesar Pompo- 

nium  Flaccum,  ueterem  stipendiis  et  arta  cum  rege 
amicitia  eoque  accommodatiorem  ad  fallendum,  ob  id 
maxime  Moesiae  praefecit.  Ob  ea  occurs  Ann.  2, 
87.3;  11.25,17.  Ob  haec  occurs  12,65,3;  13,41,18; 
14,64,10. 


78  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

Suetonius  has  both  phrases.  He  felt  id  to  be  so 
weak  a  word  that  he  reinforces  it  with  ipsum.  Otho  i 
quamuis  ob  id  ipsum  (quod  praepositos  suos  occide- 
rant)  promotos  (5f.  miHtes)  in  ampliorem  gradum. .  . . 
sciret;  Julius  8  colonias  L,atinas  ad  audendum  aliquid 
concitasset,  nisi  consules . .  . .  legiones  paulisper  ob  id 
ipsum  retinuisset;  Tib.  65  collegam  sibi  adsumpsit. .  . . 
quem  longo  interuallo  absens  ob  id  ipsum  susceperat; 
Galba  10. .  .  .adstante  nobili  puero,  quem....ob  id 
ipsum  acciuerat,  deplorauit  temporum  statum;  Vitel. 
14  quosdam . .  .  .ob  id  ipsum  ("simply  on  the  charge") 
quod. .  . . ,  interemit.  The  only  exception  is  Dom.  10 
impudicos  probauerant  et  ob  id  (n)ullius  momenti  esse 
potuisse.  In  the  I^ives  of  the  Caesars  there  are  three 
instances  of  ob  hoc  (always  et  ob  hoc):  Aug.  94  Au- 
gustum  natum  mense  decimo,  et  ob  hoc  Apollinis 
filium  existimatum;  Dom.  17  prof essus . .  . .  conspira- 
tionis  indicium  et  ob  hoc  admissus;  Tib.  70  imitatus 
{^sc.  Tiberius  est)  Euphorionem  et  Rhianum . .  . .  et  ob 
hoc  plerique. .  .  .multa  de  his  ediderunt;  Frag.  Gram, 
3  et  ob  hoc  repudiatus;  16  suspectus . .  . .  et  ob  hoc 
remotus;  Frag.  Rhet.  5  uel  magis  ob  hoc. 

Of  the  later  writers  the  following  show  only  ob  hoc 
(or  ob  haec) : 

Justin — in  every  case  at  the  beginning  of  a  sen- 
tence— (ob  hoc:  12,3,7  diebus  natis;  16,1,5  gesturus; 
ob  haec:  12,6,15;  13)45  I7)2,i5;  20,2,5),  Script.  Hist. 
Aug.  (ob  hoc:  Hadr.  3,3;  10;  M.  Ant.  7,3;  14,5; 
Verus  3,6;  Hel.  3,8;  Commod.  4,8;  Pert.  7,2;  Did. 
Jul.  3,7;  Sev.  9,10;  Pesc.  2,3;  Car.  3,3;  4,5;  8,3; 
Geta  2,2;  4;  Heliog.  9,2;  Alex.  Sev.  63,5;  Maximini 
11,8;  Gord.    28,5;  Gall.  2,2;  XXX  Tyran.  22,3;  and 


The  Correlaiion  hie — ille.  79 

one  further  passage;  ob  haec:  Alex.  Sev.  50,2).  In 
this  work  atque  ob  hoc  and  et  ob**hoc  are  favorite 
phrases,  and  ob  hoc  tends  to  gravitate  toward  the  fol- 
lowing ut  or  quod,  ete. ,  in  some  instances  standing  at 
the  very  end  of  its  clause  just  before  these  conjunc- 
tions. De  Viris  Illustribus  (ob  hoc:  11,2;  26,3;  ob 
haec:  33,10;  48,5;  56,5).  Aur.  Vict.  Hist.  Abbr.  (20, 
17  ob  haec  tanta;  39,41  ob  ea). 

Thus  we  see  that  within  a  period  of  four  genera- 
tions from  their  first  appearance  in  the  literature,  these 
two  phrases,  probably  following  the  analogy  of  the  older 
phrases  ob  earn  rem  (eas  res),  ob  eam  causam,  and  of 
eo,  ideo,  propterea,  etc.,  developed  a  great  variety  of 
usages.  The  present  sketch  is  of  course  only  an  out- 
line. Their  history  can  be  written  only  by  viewing 
them  in  connection  with  the  other  causal  adverbs  and 
adverbial  phrases.  By  the  time  of  Pliny  the  Younger 
both  phrases  had  come  to  be  so  freely  used  that  the 
individual  writers  show  great  variety  in  their  employ- 
ment. 

B.    THE   CORRELATIONS    HIC — ILLE,    HIC — HIC, 
ILLE — ILLE,   etc. 

In  these  correlations  we  likewise  find  clear  indica- 
tions of  a  weakening  of  meaning  of  the  pronoun  hie 
(as  also  of  ille).  For  iste — ille  see  below  pp.  132-137. 
We  begin  with  the  correlation — 

1.  Hie — ille,  since  it  was  the  normal  form  by 
which  contrasts  were  expressed,  and  was  doubtless 
developed  as  early  as  the  other  two  phrases,  since  it  is 
as  old  as  the  words  themselves.     Such  natural  con- 


8o  The  Latin  Pronoiais. 

trasts  occur  not  infrequently  in  Plautus  and  Terence 
and  call  for  no  special  comment.  A  word  may  not  be 
amiss,  however,  on  the  relative  position  of  the  ele- 
ments introduced  by  these  words.  With  the  Auctor 
ad  Herennium  it  had  become  a  matter  of  indifference 
which  of  the  two  pronouns  preceded,  as  is  shown  by 
4,19,26  membrum. .  .  .articulus. .  .  .inter  huius  generis 
et  illius  superioris  uehementiam  hoc  interest:  illud 
(the  former,  membrum)  tardius. .  .  .uenit,  hoc. .  .  .cre- 
brius  peruenit  ....  itaque  in  illo  genere  . .  . . ,  in  hoc 
autem ....  While  it  is  true  that  the  three  sets  of 
contrasts  huius — illius,  illud — hoc,  illo — hoc  are  not 
strictl}'  coordinate,  yet  illud — hoc  and  illo — hoc  stand 
in  the  same  relation  to  huius — illius,  as  that  in  which 
this  last  correlation  stands  to  mem. — art.  The  order 
huius — illius  is  readily  accounted  for  by  the  widely 
extended  Roman  practice  of  employing  hie  at  the 
beginning  of  a  new  thought  to  refer  to  an  immediately 
preceding  idea,  a  usage  similar  to  the  normal  usage  of 
is.  Various  reasons  could  be  suggested  that  might 
have  motivated  the  change  to  the  order  illud — hoc. 
Livy  makes  the  same  change  39,53,3  (Demetrius) .... 
Perseus . .  . .  ,  hunc ....  ilium . .  . .  ;  ilium ....  hunc  {cf. 
22,39,4  Terentio  ....  Hannibale  ....  hie  ....  ille  . .  . . , 
illo  ....  hoc  . .  . .).  Cicero  and  Velleius  Paterculus 
seemed  to  find  nothing  objectionable  in  a  sustained 
series  of  these  alternatives  recurring  in  the  same  order: 
Orat.  in  Cat.  2,25  ex  hac  parte ....  illinc,  hinc... 
illinc,  hinc ....  illinc,  hinc  ....  illinc,  hinc  ....  illinc, 
hinc  ....  illinc,  hinc ....  illinc, ....  denique . .  . . ;  Veil. 
Pat.  2,84,1  in  hac  parte. .  .  .in  ilia,  hinc. .  .  .illinc,  haec 
....  ilia,  hinc ....  illinc, ....  denique ....     Velleius  has 


The  Correlation  hie — ille.  8i 

clearly  modeled  his  sentence  on  Cicero's,  but  has 
improved  upon  it  by  introducing  the  agreeable  change 
from  Adverb  to  Adjective.  Pliny  the  Younger  9,7,3  f. 
varies  it  still  more:  duae  {sc.  uillae).  altera. .  .  .altera; 
illam  ....  hanc,  haec  ....  ilia:  haec  ....  ilia;  illic. .  . . 
hie:  ilia. .  .  .haec:  ex  ilia. .  .  .ex  hac. .  . .  The  correla- 
tion is  rare  in  Cicero,  notwithstanding  the  general 
acceptance  of  Raschig's  conclusion  that  it  is  common 
in  the  orators  and  rhetorical  writers.  The  Ciceronian 
example  is  paralleled  by  Cyprian,  De  Cath.  Eccl.  Unit. 
19  hie  {sc.  in  lapso) . .  .  .illic,  hie. .  .  .illic,  hie. .  .  .illic, 
hie ....  illic,  hie ....  illic,  lapsus ....  ille,  lapsus ....  ille 
....  The  order  ille. .  .  .hie  recurs  in  Sallust,  Cat.  11,2; 
54,2;  Jug.  85,2  {cf.  Cat.  12,4 f;  58,14;  Jug.  85,22), 
who  also  has  in  Jug.  94,5  Romanis  hostibusque . .  . . 
his,  illis....  Both  orders  occur  in  Curtius,  e.g., 
3,1,17  ilia ....  haec  3,11,24  mater  coniunxque  Darei : 

ilia ,  haec ;  6,1,8  illi hi ;  4,i7illos 

hos..  . .;  10,2,16  illos hos. .  . .;  4,1,40  has  aut  illas 

partes  secuti.  His  natural  order  is  thus  seen  to  be 
ille ....  hie,  since  in  the  last  passage  he  had  no  choice 
but  to  follow  custom,  which  had  already  established 
the  invariable  order  hie ... .  ille  in  the  brief  phrases 
hie— illic,  hie  et  (atque,  aut,  uel)  illic,  et  (aut,  uel)  hie 
et  (aut,  uel)  illic  for  the  adverbial  forms  as  well  as 
for  the  substantive  and  adjectival  forms  of  the  pro- 
nouns. In  Tacitus  the  instances  of  the  correlation 
are  about  equally  divided  between  the  two  orders.  By 
the  later  writers  both  orders  are  freely  used. 

In  our  discussion  of  the  meaning  of  this  correla- 
tion we  shall  find  it  desirable  to  distinguish  between 
the  adverbial  forms  on  the  one  hand  and  the  substan- 


13 


82  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

tive  and  adjectival  forms  on  the  other.     We  take  up 
first  the  latter  class. 

In  the  examples  thus  far  cited  each  demonstrative 
retains  its  full  and  normal  meaning.  This  is  also  true 
to  a  certain  extent  of  the'  so-called  rhetorical  usage  of 
this  correlation,  in  accordance  with  which  the  two 
pronouns  are  emplo3'ed  to  refer  to  two  antecedents 
mentioned  in  the  context  immediately  preceding,  so 
that  they  take  on  the  meaning  ' '  the  former — the  lat- 
ter." The  earliest  extant  example  is,  as  is  well 
known,  that  found  in  a  fragment  of  Accius  (frag.  4 
p.  137  Ribb.). 

Tu  pertinaciam  esse,  Antiloche,  hanc  praedicas, 
Ego  peruicaciam  aio  et  ea  me  uti  uolo: 
Haec  {sc.   peruicacia)  fortis  sequitur,  illam  in- 
docti  possident. 

From  the  semasiological  standpoint  this  usage  scarcely 
differs  from  the  normal  usage  of  the  pronouns,  since 
haec  refers  to  the  quality  that  the  speaker  wishes  to 
possess,  while  illam  refers  to  that  in  which  he  would 
have  no  interest.  We  may  the  more  confidently 
assume  that,  although  for  the  most  part,  Accius  gave 
in  his  tragedies  a  fairly  close  translation  of  the  Greek 
original,  he  was  not  influenced  in  the  present  instance 
by  the  Greek  ouro?  and  ixsTvo!;,  or  even  by  6  fiiv . .  . . 
<j  Si  to  use  haec — illam  to  express  the  contrast,  since 
the  above  passage  bears  on  its  face  clear  indications 
of  being  an  original  contribution  of  the  Roman  poet. 
If  we  now  turn  to  Cicero's  De  Nat.  Deor.  1,47  we 
shall  find  for  the  first  time  in  a  Roman  prose  writer  a 
usage  which  implies  an  important  change  in  the  mean- 


The  Correlation  hie — ille.  83 

iug  of  the  word:  nam  Cotta  meus  modo  hoc  modo 
illud  {sc.  facit).  In  this  passage  neither  pronoun  has 
a  definite  antecedent.  The  vague  antecedent  of  hoc 
does  not  stand  any  closer  to  the  speaker's  sympa- 
thies, nor  is  it  locally  or  temporally  closer  to  him  than 
that  of  illud.  In  other  words  all  deictic  force  of  the 
two  pronouns  is  lost  and  they  serve  only  to  indicate 
that  the  objects  referred  to  are  of  different  characters, 
'  'one  thing — another. ' '  They  thus  become  synonymous 
with  alius — alius,  (not  alter — alter,  which  refer  to  two, 
usually  definite,  antecedents),  and  like  alius — alius,  do 
not  imply  that  only  two  alternatives  are  possible  (as 
would  aut  hoc  aut  illud),  but  rather  indicate  that  an 
indefinite  number  of  possibilities  exists.  This  is  per- 
haps true  likewise  of  Ciceros's  Laelius  13  qui  {i.e., 
Socrates)  non  tum  hoc  tum  illud  ("not  now  one  view, 
now  another"),  ut  in  plerisque,  sed  idem  semper  {so. 
dicebat) ;  although  it  must  be  admitted  that  in  view  of 
Cato  Maior  66,  where  speaking  of  the  same  question, 
"is  the  soul  immortal?"  Cicero  says  atqui  tertium 
certe  nihil  inueniri  potest,  the  choice  seems  rather  to 
be  limited  to  the  affirmation  and  denial  of  immortal- 
ity. No  such  limitation  can  be  assumed  in  Sallust, 
Hist.  (Orat.  Phil.)  haec  atque  ilia  temptans. 

Yet  the  phrase  does  not  necessarily  imply  a  large 
number.  Quite  to  the  contrary  in  Verr.  1,53  non 
dicam  illinc  hoc  signum  ablatum  esse  et  illud,  hoc 
dico,  nullum  te  Aspendi  signum,  Verres,  reliquisse; 
and  in  De  I^eg.  Agr.  2,55  uectigalia  locare  nusquam 
licet,  nisi  in  hac  urbe  hoc  aut  illo  ex  loco  hac  uestrum 
frequentia  it  implies  that  although  three  or  even  more 
alternatives  are  possible,  yet  the  possibilities  are  few 


84  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

in  number.  In  the  former  passage  Cicero  was  not,  of 
course,  thinking  of  any  particular  statue;  that  is  to 
say,  the  antecendents  of  hoc  and  ilhid  are  not  definite. 
Still  the  implication  is  "I  do  not  mention  this  particu- 
lar statue  or  that  particular  statue,  though  able  to 
refer  to  special  instances."  (Compare  the  use  of  qui- 
dam  refering  to  an  antecedent,  which,  though  definite 
in  the  mind  of  the  speaker — e.  g.,  quendam  nomi- 
nare  possum  "  I  might  mention  a  certain  individual" 
— remains,  through  the  intention  of  the  speaker,  indefi- 
nite in  the  mind  of  the  person  addressed).  In  the  lat- 
ter instance  the  audience  was  familiar  with  the  loca 
ubi  uectigalia  locare  licet,  but  it  still  remains  a  matter 
of  uncertainty  and  of  unimportance  to  which  locus 
each  pronoun  refers.  The  phrase  thus  approaches 
unus  atque  alter  in  meaning.  De  Inuent.  2,99  si  hoc 
aut  illud  fecisset  aut  ni  sic  fecisset  implies  neither  that 
the  alternatives  are  few  or  many.  A  curious  and  rare 
usage  is  Virgil,  Kcl.  7,21  in  which  hos  isc.  uersus)  and 
illos  {sc.  versus)  look  forward  to  the  remainder  of  the 
amoebean  poem.  From  the  patristic  literature  we 
may  cite  C3'prian,  Ad  Don.  3^;  Arnobius  1,11/; 
1,59,23V;  247^;  2,13/);  Augustine,  Epist.  11,3  natura 
...  .in  se  habeat  haec  tria. .  . . :  primo  ut  sit,  deinde 
ut  hoc  uel  illud  sit  (/.  e.,  qualitatem  habeat),  tertio  ut 
. .  . . ;  then  follow  hoc  uel  illud,  aut  hoc  quidem  aut 
illud,  hoc  uel  illud,  hoc  uel  illud,  used  as  a  single  word 
(like  the  Greek  philosophical  categories  -^poz  -l,  etc.). 
Even  when  the  number  of  alternatives  is  limited 
to  two,  it  may  occasionally  remain  uncertain  to  which 
antecedent  each  pronoun  refers.  For  example,  in  Eivy 
2,51,9  his  atque  illis  refer  to  two  Roman  armies.     It 


The  Correlation  hie — ille.  85 

is  impossible  to  determine  from  the  context  to  which 
each  pronoun  refers,  and  indeed  it  does  not  matter, 
because  neither  army  is  nearer  to  the  speaker  in  time, 
place  or  interest,  and  hence  neither  should  be  definitely 
specified  by  hie  or  ille.  That  is  to  say,  we  have  now 
reached  a  stage  at  which  these  pronouns  have  lost  all 
their  demonstrative  force  and  mean  simply  ' '  one — the 
other ' '  with  no  reference  at  all  to  a  definite  anteced- 
ent. The  same  interpretation  must  be  put  on  Livy 
5,40,3;  cf.  10,14,2.  The  usage  was  not  frequently 
employed  by  prose  writers.  Florus  offers  an  example 
2, 13(4, 2), 77  inter  hos  {se.  Caesarianos  uel  Pompeianos) 
atque  illos  duces,  if  we  are  not  to  assume  in  the  light 
of  section  5  hinc  ' '  on  Caesar' s  side  "  . .  . .  inde  ' '  on 
Pompey's  side",  section  14  ille  ( Pompey )  . .  . .  hie 
(Caesar)  and  section  48  illi  (Pompey' s  cavalry) . .  . .  hi 
(Caesar's  German  infantry)  that  Florus'  sympathies 
were  more  with  Caesar,  and  that  in  consequence  of 
this  hos  means  Caesarianos.  Hinc  uel  illinc  (§  44), 
like  the  passage  in  question,  remains  uncertain.  Com- 
pare further  Anon.  Decl.  in  Catil.  121;  Dictys  Cre- 
tensis  2,2  his  aut  illis;  Placitus  3,3  aut  hoc  aut  illo 
modo;  Arnobius,  Ad  Nationes  4,4/". 

When  the  antecedent  still  remains  indefinite,  but 
the  number  of  alternatives  is  unlimited,  each  pronoun 
serving  simply  to  suggest  one  example  out  of  any 
number  that  might  indifferently  be  chosen,  we  have 
the  weakest  stage  of  meaning  to  which  this  corrella- 
tion  sank.  Of  the  original  elements  of  its  meaning 
there  remains  onlj^  the  implication  of  a  contrast,  but 
even  here  the  contrast  is  often  not  between  the  two 
antecedents  themselves,  but  between  the  activities  they 


S6  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

exhibit  or  certain  qualities  they  possess.  Even  this 
contrast  has  no  emphasis  laid  upon  it,  but  assumes  the 
form  "two  different  objects  exist"  rather  than  the 
form  "the  two  objects  are  different."  This  usage  is 
largely  confined  to  poetry,  particularly  to  the  epic 
(in  its  widest  sense),  though  not  unknown  to  prose 
writers.    A  typical  example  is  Virgil's  Aeneid  7,637  f. 

Classica  iamque  sonant;  it  bello  tessera  signum. 
Hie  gladium  tectis  trepidus  rapit,  ille  frementis 
Ad  iuga  cogit  equos  clipeumque . .  . . ; 

cf-  4,157 

Gaudet  equo,  iamque  hos  cursu,  iam  praeterit 
illos; 

.5.441 

Nunc  hos  nunc  illos  aditus,  omnemque  pererrat 
Arte  locum. 

Further  examples  are:  Manil.  1,191  nunc  his  nunc 
illis  regionibus;  Sil.  Ital.  5,150  nunc  hos  nunc  illos; 
Stat.  Thebais  2,589  hos. ..  .illos;  Orestis  Tragoedia 
852.  L/Ucan,  though  a  careful  imitator  of  Virgil, 
offers  no  instances,  unless  we  may  so  interpret  6,277, 
which  perhaps  falls  under  the  preceding  type.  The 
usage  is  found  in  the  lyrics  of  Horace,  e.  g.,  1,1,7-8; 
et  al.  From  the  prose  literature  we  may  cite  Florus 
1, 1 8 (2, 2), 35  in  hos  uel  illos  ictus  mobilia  rostra  speci- 
men uiuentium  praebebant;  Plin.  Epist.  6,20,14  hi. .  . 
illi  with  preceding  alii ....  alii ....  alii ....  and  follow- 
ing multi.  The  indifferent  character  of  this  antece- 
dent is  clearly  made  manifest  in  such  a  passage  as  the 
following:  Virgil,  Aen.  6,315 


The  Correlation  hie — ille.  87 

Nauita  {sc.  Charon)   set  tristis  nunc  hos  nunc 

accipit  illos, 
Ast  alios  longo  submotos  arcet  harena; 

Macrobius,  Sat.  1,24,1  laudare  hie  memoriam,  ille 
doctrinam,  cuncti  religionem.  It  was  this  absolute 
indifference  of  the  antecedent  that  made  it  possible 
for  Horace  to  write  in  Sat.  1,1,112 

neque  se  maiori  pauperionum 
Turbae  comparat,    hunc  atque   hunc   superare 
laboret 

in  precisely  the  same  sense  with  Virgil,  Aen.  4,157. 
Finally  a  passage  in  which  the  words  no  longer  stand 
in  parallel  syntactical  relation,  Juv.  lo.igGf. 

....  pulchrior  ille 
Hoc,  atque  ille  alio,  multum  hie  robustior  illo. 

As  soon  as  it  became  possible  thus  to  use  these  two 
pronouns  to  refer  to  entirely  vague  and  indefinite 
antecedents,  it  became  possible  to  extend  the  series 
indefinitely  by  repeating  either  pronoun.  Thus  multi- 
membral  contrasts  or  series  originated.  Such  a  series 
is  found  in  Ennius  (see  below)  and  lyUcretius  3,311 
(the  discussion  is  on  the  character  of  man  as  depend- 
ing on  the  prominence  in  his  nature  of  one  or  another 
of  the  three  elements) 

....  proeliuius  hie  iras  deeurrit  ad  acris 
Ille  metu  citius  paulo  temptetur,  at  ille 
Tertius  accipiat  quaedam  elementius  aequo; 

cf.  Virg.  Geor.  2,505-8  hie. .  .  .hie. .  .  .hunc. .  . . ;  Hor. 
Sat.  1,2,41-45  hie. .  .  .ille. .  .  .hie. .  .  .hie. .  .  .hunc. .  . . 
quin  etiam  illud  aceidit  ut  cuidam. .  . .;  cf.  1,4,27!?.  hie 


88  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

. .  .  .liic. .  .  .hunc. .  . .  Albius. .  .  .hie. .  . . ;  Ode  3,1,9- 
13  Est  ut  uiro  uir ....  hie ....  hie ....  ille . .  . . ;  Luean 
7, 774-776  ille ....  ille ....  hune ....  in  hoe ....  in  Caes- 
are. .  . . ;  Stat.  Sil.  2,1,213-17  hos. .  .  .hos. .  .  .his. .  . . 
his  ....  hos. .  .  .illos  ....  hos. .  . . ;  2,2,45-50  haee. . . . 
ilia. .  .  .haee. .  .  .haee. .  . . ;  4,3,50  hi. ..  .hi. .  .  .illi. .  . . 
hi...,;  Theb.  4,2995.  hi. .  .  .hi. .  .  .his. .  .  .his. .  . . 
his. .  .  .ille. .  .  .ille. .  .  .hos . .  . . ;  Juv.  3,69f. 

Hie  alta  Sieyone,  ast  hie  Amj^done  relieta, 
Hie  Andro,   ille  Samo,  hie  Trallibus  aut  Ala- 

bandis, 
Esquilias ....  petunt .... 

10,225  ille. .  .  .hie. .  .  .hie. .  .  .ille. .  .  .huius. .  . . ;  Clau- 
dian  5,4ioff.  hi. ..  .alii. ..  .ille. ..  .ille. ..  .ille. ..  .hie 
. .  .  .hie. .  .  .hie. .  .  .hie. .  . . 

The  use  of  the  pronouns  as  indefinites  in  an  ex- 
tended series  naturally  admits  varietatis  causa  other 
indefinite  nouns  or  pronouns  into  the  series.  So  eui- 
dam  and  uiro  uir  above.  Similarlj'  used  are  alius 
(Luean  2,183  f.  ^^ic. .  .  -alius. .  .  .ille. .  .  .),  alter  (Calp. 
Eel.  10,48 f.  hie. ..  .alter. ..  .ille. ... ;  Statins,  Sil.  5, 
3, 1 85fT.  alter ....  alter ....  alter ....  hi ....  hi ....  hi ... . 
illi. .  . .),  pars  (Ovid.  Met.  ii,29f.  hae. .  .  .illae. .  .  .pars 
.  •  . . ;  II  ,486  pars ....  pars ....  hie ....  hie . .  . . ;  lyUean 
10,128-131  hos. ..  .alios. ..  .haee  {sc.  pars) ....  pars 
altera. ..  .pars. ... ;  Stat.  Sil.  3,1,118-125  his....illis 
. .  .  .pars. .  .  .pater  ipse. .  . .).  Theb.  2,551  offers  hos 
....  illos ....  nee  paueos .... 

So  also  the  prose  writers:  Plin.  N.  H.  13,40  aliis 
....  aliis,  his ....  aliis,  ....  quibusdam  aliud ....  aliud 
....  (in  pairs)  ita  fiunt  IXI,  genera;    Plin.   Panegyr. 


The  Correlation  hie — ille.  89 

25(?  aliquis. .  .  .alius. .  .  .hie. .  .  .ille. .  . . ;  Epist.  4,24,3 
qiiidam  ....  alii  ....  huic  ....  hie  ....  alius  ....  ilium 
....;  Gellius,  N.  A.  1,9,9  alius ....  item  alius ....  hie 
. .  .  .ille. .  . . ;  Apul.  Met.  2,29  (p.  66).     The  possibili- 
ties of  sueh  a  series  are  illustrated  by  Gellius,  N.  A. 
Praef .  6-7  alii ....  alii ....  ille ....  hie ....  alius ....  par- 
tim  ....  quidam  ....  alius  ....  atque  alius  . .  . .  et  item 
alius ....  sunt   etiam  qui  ....  sunt  item  qui  ....  sunt 
adeo  qui ....  et ....  et ....  et ... .  (with  nouns  omitted) 
est  qui ....  est  qui ....  et ....  et ... .  est  item  qui ....  est 
....  est   praeterea   qui ....  est   itidem   qui ....  est   qui 
....  sunt  item  multi  qui ....  neque  item  non  sunt  qui 
....  aut ....  aut   .  . .  aut . .  . .  et    quaedam   alia ....  mul- 
tasque ....  nos  uero 

Instances  of  the  insertion  of  a  proper  name  in 
sueh  a  series  are  very  uncommon,  the  only  ones  known 
to  me  being  those  from  Horace  and  lyUean  cited  above, 
while  Plin.  Epist.  4,24,3  concludes  a  series  with  nos 
ipsos.  In  Horace,  Epist.  2,2,59f.  we  read  tu..  ..hie 
....ille;  91  ego  (understood)  is  contrasted  with  hie. 
Statins,  Sil.  5,3,185  concludes  a  series  with  tu;  3,1,118 
with  pater  ipse. 

The  attentive  reader  has  doubtless  already  ob- 
served that  in  this  category  no  passage  from  a  prose 
writer  has  been  cited  in  which  hie  and  ille  are  unac- 
companied by  some  other  indefinite  word,  as  well  as 
that  the  larger  part  of  the  indefinite  bimembral  alterna- 
tives is  made  up  of  the  brief  expressions  nunc  h.  nunc 
il.,  iam  h.  iam  il. 

The   corresponding   adverbial   correlations   are   of 

much  more  frequent  occurrence  than  the  substantive 

and  adjectival.     In  Hand,  Turs.  s.  vv.  hac,  hue,  ete., 
14 


90  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

is  found  a  good  collection  of  instances  of  these  correla- 
tions. They  were  used  from  Plautus  on  down  to 
the  latest  period.  We  distinguish:  i)  hie — illic,  2)  hinc 
— illinc,  3)  hue — illuc,  4)  hac — iliac.  These  phrases, 
like  those  discussed  above,  show  both  the  stronger  and 
the  weaker  meaning.  Hue — illuc  and  hinc — illinc  are 
by  far  the  more  frequent  forms;  hac — iliac  rarely 
occurs,  hie — illic  only  occasionally. 

Hie — illic  is  first  found  in  Plautus,  Most  605, 
where  the  slave  in  reply  to  the  usurer's  repeated  de- 
mands for  his  interest  exclaims  faenus  illic,  faenus  hie 
(that  is,  "faenus  everywhere").  The  phrase  is  already 
used  of  entirely  indefinite  antecedents.     Catullus  6,9 

Puluinusque  peraeque  et  he/c  et  ill^/c  ||  ^/fBaehr.H 
Attritus 

testifies  to  the  substantive  usage  exemplified  by  Livy 
2,51,9  (cited  above),  which  is  found  in  the  adverbial 
form  in  lyivy  8,37,6  nee  hie  nee  illic.  So  Catullus  10, 
21  ne^z^i?  hie  neque  illic.     Ovid.  Met.  7,581 

Hie,  illic,  ubi  mors  deprenderat,  exhalantes 
is  like  Most.  605  (see  also  Virgil,  Geor.  1,54;  69  f.)    In 
Varro,  Res  Rustica  3,5,6  aut  hie  aut  illic  is  definite. 

2)  Hinc — illinc  is  also  first  met  in  Plautus,  Amph. 
229,  in  the  form  hinc  et  illinc,  a  superfluous  epexege- 
sis  on  uterque.  Both  adverbs  here  retain  their  normal 
force,  hinc  meaning  "on  our  side,"  illinc  "on  the 
enemj^'s  side,"  whereas  in  Most.  565  et  hinc  et  illinc 
means  "on  both  sides"  (indefinite). 

a)  Hinc  •  •  •  •  illinc  with  asyndeton  and  not  juxta- 
posed: Lucr.  2,521  hinc  flammis,  illinc  ....  pruinis; 
Virgil,  Geor.  1,509;  Petron.  83;   108;  Curtius  6,11,16 


The  Correlation  hie — ille.  91 

hinc  ignis  illinc  uerbera. .  . .  ingerebantur  {sc.  Philotae); 
cf.  8,14,32  and  Juvenal  10,44  iHinc  cornicines,  hinc 
....  agminis  officia  (observe  the  order). 

b)  With  asyndeton  and  juxtaposed:  Catullus 
68a,i33(==  68b,93)  hinc  illinc  (circumcursans) ;  L,ucre- 
tius  (of  an  indefinite  antecedent);  Ovid,  Met.  i,6i9f. 
illinc  I  Hinc  (chiastic  sentence);  Seneca,  Medea  108 
h.  i.  mittite  carmina. 

c)  With  copula: 

Hinc  rex  et  illinc  Sen.  Medea  516. 

Hinc  illinc^z^i?  ||  illinc  cod.  A  ||  Cic.  Tim.  49. 

Hinc  atque  illinc:  lyiv.  3,5,1  (impetus  facti); 
26,39,19  (transferentes  uela);  32,10,12  (uulneribus 
acceptis);  Petron.  48  (secuit);  32  (fimbriis  h.  a.  i.  pen- 
dentibus). 

Hinc  ucl  illinc:  Tac.  Annal.  2,6,7  adpelle- 
rent  naues);  Hist.  3,47,19  (adpellere  naues);  Germ. 
44,11  (mutabile  h.  u.  i.  remigio). 

Hinc  aut  illinc:  Liv.  7,8,1  (aufert);  9,32,6 
(telum  h.  a.  i.  emissum). 

d)  With  correlating  adverbs  or  conjunctions: 
Nunc\)xn(i  w?^«^ilUnc:  I^ucr.  2,2i4f.  (nubibus 

ignes  I  concursant);  6,199  (fremitus — "thunder" — 
per  nubila  mittunt);  Virg.  Aen.  4,442  (n.  h.  n.  flati- 
bus  illinc   |   . .  . .  certant)  with  the  interlocked  order. 

Atque  hinc  atque  illinc  umeros  ad  uolnera 
durat  Virg.  Geor.  3,257. 

3  Hue — illuc.     The   two    adverbs   bear   their    full 
original  demonstrative  force  in  Plant.  Capt.  370 

Ad  te  atque  ad  ilium:  pro  rota  me  uti  licet. 
Uel  ego  hue  uel  illuc  uortar  quo  imperabitis. 


g2  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

With  the  weakened  force  it  occurs  Aul.  607 

Hinc  ego  et  hue  et  illuc  potero  quid  agant  arbi- 
trarier. 
The  formulae  in  which  it  occurs  are  of  about  the  same 
range  with  those  of  the  two  adverbial  correlations  just 
discussed,  and  may  be  grouped  under  the  same  gen- 
eral heads: 

a)  Asyndeton — not  juxtaposed: 

b)  Asyndeton — juxtaposed:  Cic.  Ad  Att.  9,9,2^ 
cursemhuc  illuc  uia  teterrima;  Sail.  Jug.  60,4  (agitare 
corpora);  Ovid,  Met.  2  (feror);  Virg.  Geor.  2,297  (aescu- 
lus  sustinet  umbram);  Aen.  4,363  (uoluens  oculos); 
5,408  (uersat);  Manil.  1,199  (reflectat);  Petron.  114 
(uentus  conuertebat  ratem);  Ilias  Lat.  393  (coruscat); 
Lucan  8,699  (truncus  iactatur  aquis);  Stat.  Achil.  200 
(uolutat);  Siluae  1,3,72  ( prosternat ) ;  Theb.  2,602 
(clipeum  obiectans);  4,366  (uersans  lumina);  733  (im- 
pellat);  9,172  (frustra  ruit  auius);  Sil.  Ital.  17,137 
(iactans — sc.  equus  membra);  Plin.  Epist.  2,17,9  (dige- 
ret);  Quint.  10,7,6  (salientes). 

c)  With  copula: 

Hue  et  illuc:  Ad  Herenn.  4,11;^  (fluctuat); 
Cic.  Gael.  13  (torquere  et  flectere  suum  ingenium);  De 
Nat.  Deor.  2,115  (casu  et  temere  cursantibus);  loi  (aer 
efiauens  uentos  efficit);  De  Off.  1,101  (rapit);  Acad. 
2,116  (trahuntur  rationes);  De  Div.  2,80  (uolucris  pas- 
sim uagantes);  De  Nat.  Deor.  3,68  (uersat);  De  Fin 
2,99  (uersetis);  Hor.  4,11,9  (cursitant);  Celsus  2,15,8 
(lectus  manu  impellendus) ;  8,1,35  (se  inclinans);  Sen. 
De  Ben.  5,5^  (hoc  et  illo — sic! — diducit);  Med.  862 
(h.  fert  pedes  et  illuc);  Stat.  Theb.  4,380  (h.  tristis  et 


The  Correlatio7i  hie — ille. 


93 


illuc pinum  deiectat);  9,849  (h.  fessus  et  i.  |  Muta- 

bat  turmas);   10,168  (acies  h.  errat  et  i.). 

Hue  atque  illuc.  Cic.  Quint.  Rose.  37  (tergi- 
uersantem);  De  Oratore  1,40  (intuens);  184  (uagare); 
De  Fin.  5,86  (uerses);  Bell.  Afr.  73  (rapsaret);  Sail. 
Hist.  3,48,26  (M)  (hue  ire  a.  i. — order!);  Livy  7,34,16 
(signa  moueri);  5,8,8  (signa  transferrent);  Valer.  Max. 
6,8,7  (errantiaj;  Petron.  37  (diseurreret) ;  10 1  (ueeta- 
tur);  Celsus  4,1,29  (ab  utraque  parte  h.  a.  i.  uolutum 
intestinum  colon);  Stat.  Theb.  2,545  (h.  ferus  a.  i.  ani- 
mum. .  .  .ferens);  Gellius  2,6,5  (distrahitur — of  the  hu- 
man mind);  Dictys  3,3  (oberrans);  Script.  Hist.  Aug. 
Maximini  5,1  (discurrens,  "  the  whole  world  over"); 
Jordanes,  Get.  182. 

Hue  xWwaque:  Celsus  5,26,14  (oeuli  mouen- 
tur).  In  Plin.  N.  H.  37,83  the  phrase  is  not  well 
authenticated. 

Hue  tiel  illuc:     Ter.  And.  266 
Dum  in  dubiost  animus,  paulo  momento  h.  u.  i. 
inpellitur; 

Hue  illucz^^:  Celsus  6,6,36  (moueatur);  7,3,8 
(diseernit);  7,18,14  (conuersum— 5C.  fuit);  8,16,8  (se 
dederunt). 

d)  With  correlating  words: 

Et  hue  et  illuc:     Petron.  39  (quadrat). 
UelhyxQ  ?/«?/ illuc  impelluntur  Celsus  7,7,3. 
Nune  hue  mine  illuc:     I^uer.    2,131   (reuerti 
I  N.  h.  n.  i.  in  eunctas  undique  partis); 
Virgil,  Aen.  4,285  (n.  h.  celerem  n.  diuidit  illuc);  5,701 
(N,  h.  ingentis  n.  i.  pectore  cur  as 
Mutabat  uersans); 


94  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

Manil.  2,904  (N.  h,  n.  i.  mutantis);  3,167  (mota);  Sen. 
Med.  938 

(N.  h.  ira  n.  i.  amor  |  Diducit); 
Sil.  Ital.  4,323 

N.  h.  alterno,  n.  i.,  flamine  gestant  {sc.  uenti). 
Ttim   hue   tuni   illuc:      Cic.    De    Div,    1,120 
(uolant  alites);  cf.  L,ael.  13  supra  cit. 

lam  hue  ia^n  illuc:  Florus  1,33(2,17)8  (missi 
duces). 

Dum  hue  dimi  illuc:  Plaut.  True.  38  (rete 
or  impedit)  in  its  present  condition  is  corrupt,  if  not 
interpolated. 

Modo  hue  inodo  illuc:  Catullus  3,9  (circum- 
siliens);  15,7  (praetereunt, — sc.  in  platea  homines); 
Cic.  De  Div.  2,145  (ducentium);  Par.  14  (transferun- 
tur);  Tim.  48  (verb  lost — lacuna  in  text). 

4)  Hac — iliac:  Plaut.  Rud.  213  hac  an  iliac  earn 
incerta  (definite?);  Ter.  Haut.  512  Hac  iliac  circum- 
cursa  (indefinite);  Eun.  105 

Plenus  rimarum  sum,  hac  atque  iliac  perfluo; 
Petron.    ^']e   (pedem  opponerent);  Tac.   Agr.    28  hac 
atque  ilia  rapti. 

Multimembral  adverbial  series  are  very  rare  yet 
not  entirely  wanting.  Stat.  Silu.  1,6,67-74  hie... 
hie. .  .  .illic  .  .  .ilhc. .  .  .hie. .  . . ;  Sil.  Ital.  10,312  f. 
hie  ....  hie  ....  illic  ||  illuc  codd.  LFOV  ||  ....  hie  .... 
passim . .  . . ;  403  f .  hie ....  hie ....  illic  1 1  z;.  /.  ibi  1 1 . .  . . 
It  will  be  recalled  that  the  earliest  bimembral 
series  cited  above  in  which  the  pronouns  are  used 
indefinitely  is  found  in  Cicero,  while  the  earliest  pas- 
sage in  which  the  words  mean  "the  former,  the  latter" 
is  in   Accius,  Joseph   Bach  {pp.  cit.  p.  309)  being  fully 


The  Correlation  hie — ille.  95 

justified  in  regarding  with  Brachmann  Plaut.  Bacch. 
395  as  spurious.  However,  a  trimembral  series  con- 
siderably antedating  Accius  occurs  in  Ennius,  Fab- 
ulae  330  (M) 

His  erat  in  ore  Bromius,  his  Bacchus  pater,  illis 
Lyaeus  ( '  'some — some — others' ' ) . 
Since  the  semasiological  change  undergone  by  hie 
and  ille  in  passing  from  a  definite  to  an  indefinite 
antecedent  is  the  same  in  the  multimembral  as  in  the 
bimembral  series,  there  is  no  reason  for  assuming  that 
the  process  was  accomplished  sooner  in  the  one  case 
than  in  the  other,  unless  it  be  that  the  repetition  of 
the  same  pronoun  (made  necessary  in  the  multimem- 
bral sentence)  refering  to  different  antecedents  in  the 
same  sentence  (so  his — his  above)  facilitated  the  change 
in  meaning.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  find  that  in  the 
bimembral  correlations  hie — hie  and  ille — ille,  the  first 
step  toward  this  change  is  apparent  in  Plautus  and 
Terence  (see  below).  On  the  other  hand  in  the  case 
of  the  hie — ille  type  it  is  only  in  the  short  adverbial 
expressions  hie — illic,  hinc — illinc,  hue — illue,  etc., 
that  we  find  in  these  two  comedians  the  process 
of  the  weakening  of  the  meaning  under  discussion 
an  accomplished  fact.  That  neither  series  (non- 
adverbial)  appears  in  Plautus  or  Terence  is  due  simply 
to  the  fact  that  these  correlations  are  appropriate  only 
to  description  and  narration,  which  are  rarely  found 
in  comedy.  In  view  of  this  we  shall  probably  not  be 
much  in  error,  if  we  assume  that  the  indefinite  use  of 
the  bimembral  series  was  also  possible  to  Ennius,  and 
only  the  scantiness  of  the  extant  remains  of  his  works 
deprives  us  of  examples. 


96  The  Latin  Pronou7is. 

As  has  already  been  suggested,  the  adverbial  forms 
appeared  earlier  in  the  literature  and  obtained  much 
greater  currency  than  did  the  others.   They  may  actu- 
ally have  developed  earlier.    Unlike  the  adjectival  and 
substantive  forms,  which  stand  for  a  material  ante- 
cedent the  individuality  of  which  is  likely  to  be  clearly 
felt,  they  represent  only  more  or  less  vague  local  or 
temporal  conceptions.     In  the  great  majority  of  in- 
stances the  locutions  hinc — illinc,  etc.,  serve  to  point 
out  that  certain  acts  take  place  in  two  different  places, 
it  being  unimportant  whether  one  is  near  and  one  far 
away.     The  important  thought  is  that  the  two  points 
where  the  action  takes  place  are  separate  and  distant 
from  each  other.     The  distinctive  meaning  of   each 
word  is  thus  easily  lost,  and  the  meaning  of  the  locu- 
tion as  a  whole  becomes  the  important  thing.    Further- 
more those  adjectival  and  substantive  locutions  that 
give  indication  of  having  been  modeled  on  the  adver- 
bial forms,  e.  g.,  modo  hoc  modo  illud,  tum  hoc  tum 
illud,  hoc  aut  illo,  his  atque  illis,  hoc  uel  illud,  hoc 
aut  illud,  make  up  by  far  the  larger  number  of  in- 
stances in  which  the  correlation  bears  the  indefinite 
sense. 

2.  Hie — hie.  The  weakening  of  hie  to  an  in- 
definite pronoun  is  seen  with  equal  clearness  in  this 
correlation.  There  is,  however,  one  important  differ- 
ence between  the  two  locutions.  In  the  case  of  hie — 
ille  the  contrast  is  largely  expressed  by  the  difference 
in  the  meaning  of  the  words.  In  the  present  case  the 
contrast  is  not  expressed  by  the  words  themselves, 
they  being  identical  in  meaning,  but  either  by  gesture, 
etc.,  or  by  the  predicates  affirmed  of  their  antecedents. 


The  Correlation  hie — hie.  97 

Cicero's  citation  from  Servius  (Ad  Fam.  9,16,4)  hie 
uersus  Plauti  non  est,  hie  est  has  been  made  a  locus 
elassieus  by  Wolfflin's  discussion  of  it  in  his  "Gemina- 
tion im  Lateinisehen"  (Miinchener  Sitzungsber.  1882). 
He  characterises  it  as  an  imitation  of  the  Conversa- 
tionsstil  comparing  Horace,  Ars  Poet.  439 

"Corrige,  sodes, 
Hoc,"  aiebat,  "et  hoe." 

(on  which  Lucian  Miiller,  ad  loc.,  misunderstanding 
the  classical  usage,  says  "fiir  et  illud"),  and  Sat. 
1,1,112  hunc  atque  hune  (Miiller,  "fiir  atque  ilium"). 
The  usage  is  further  exemplified  by  Ars  Poet.  45  hoe 
amet,  hoe  spernat,  and  two  such  pairs  Ars  Poet.  363 
and  365 

Haec    amat    obseurum;    uolet    haee    sub   luce 

uideri; 
Haec  placuit  semel,  haee  decies  repetita  placebit. 

In  Ad  Fam.  /.  c.  and  similar  passages  there  is  really 
no  weakening  in  the  force  of  the  pronoun,  since  one 
object  after  another  is  laid  before  the  critic,  and  each 
one,  as  it  is  examined,  becomes  "this  verse"  {cf.  Plant. 
Capt.  loii  Pater  hie  est,  hie  seruos — see  also  1018 
Pater  hie  est.  Hie  fur  est).  Closely  connected  with 
this  last  type  is  Virg.  Eel.  4,55-57 

Non  me  earminibus  uineat  nee  Thraeius  Or- 
pheus, 

Nee  lyinus,  huie  mater  quamuis  atque  huic  pater 
adsit, 

Orphei  Caliopea,  L,ino  formonsus  Apollo; 

and  Aen.  8,357 
15 


98  The  Lati7i  Pro7iou7is. 

Hanc    lanus    pater,    hanc    Saturnus    condidit 

arcem: 
laniculum  huic,  illi  fuerat  Saturnia  nomen. 

This  passage  exemplifies  the  close  contact  in  meaning 
between  hie — hie  and  hie — ille.  Compare  Tacitus, 
Hist.    4,55,7   Tutor ....  Sabinus .... ,  hie  Treuir,  hie 

lyingouus.  Tutor. .  .  .Sab The  usage  is  rare  in 

late  I^atin,  but  is  found  in  Script.  Hist.  Aug.  Avid. 
Cass.  2,8;  Min.  Fel.  40,4;  Alcimus  Avitus  5  (p.  33,2) 
quidquid  hie  ||  illic  Mommsen  ||  nocuit,  hie  pro  fecit; 
quidquid  tunc  fleuimus,  nunc  amamus. 

Very  instructive  for  the  interpretation  of  Ad  Fam. 
/.  c.  are  Ter.  Ad.  417  f. 

Hoc  facito ....  Hoc  fugito. 
Hoc  laudist ....  Hoc  uitio  datur, 

where,  as  in  Ars  Poet.  363  and  365,  two  pairs  of 
alternatives  are  found,  and  Ter.  Ad.  425  f. 

Hoc   salsumst,    hoc   adustumst,    hoc    lautumst 

parum; 
Illud  recte. 

where  we  likewise  have  two  alternatives.  The  second 
is  il.  recte;  the  first  is  trimembral,  the  three  alterna- 
tives as  a  whole  being  contrasted  with  illud  recte,  and 
being  logically  equivalent  to  haec  praue.  This  pas- 
sage testifies  to  the  existence  of  the  usage  at  a  time 
long  antedating  Servius.  It  is  paralleled  by  the  famil- 
iar passage  Hor.  Sat.  1,4,134-7  rectius  hoc  est. .  .  .hoc 
....  sic  ... .  hoc  . .  . . ,  where  sic  is  introduced  varie- 
tatis  causa. 

In  the  last  two  passages,  in  which  the  number  of 


The  Correlation  hie — hie.  99 

alternatives  exceeds  two,  the  antecedents  have  already 
lost  their  individuality,  and,  as  in  the  case  of  hie — ille 
discussed  on  p.  85,  the  stress  lies  entirely  on  the 
contrast  between  the  predicates  that  are  assigned  to 
them.  The  pronouns  pass  still  further  into  the  realm 
of  indefiniteness,  when  brought  in  such  rapid  suc- 
cession before  the  mind  that  no  time  is  allowed  for  the 
mind  to  dwell  upon  each  one.  In  many  passages  even 
the  contrast  between  the  predicates,  which  is  often 
very  slight,  is  left  unstated,  and  the  reader  or  list- 
ener is  left  to  infer  from  the  mere  presence  of  a  copula 
et,  aut,  ete.,)  or  from  the  general  context,  that  two 
distinct  antecedents  are  referred  to.  Thus  to  be  inter- 
preted are:  Ad  Heren.  2,40  hoc  aut  hoc  fecissem,  and 
Cic.  De  Invent.  1,99  hoc  et  hoc  sit  demonstratum;  100 
nobis  hoc  et  hoc  plane  factum  est  (cited  by  Krebs- 
Schmalz,  Antibarbarus  I^  593);  Quint.  6,1,4  cum 
sciret  haec  et  haec;  id.  3  responsurus  sit  aduersarius 
his  et  his.  [Hac  et  hac]  in  9,4,129  is  a  gloss  on  fluit. 
Cf.  4,4,8  ego  hoc  dico,  aduersarius  hoc,  in  which  the 
contrast  is  expressed  by  the  two  grammatical  subjects. 
In  these  passages,  except  possibly  the  last,  it  seems 
unnecessary  to  assume  that  the  speaker  is  thinking  of 
a  definite  object  when  he  utters  each  '  'hoc' ' ,  nor  is  he 
on  the  other  hand  using  them  exactly  as  indefinites. 
They  seem  rather  to  approach  in  meaning  the  familiar 
legal  formula  illud — illud  "such  and  such".  Further- 
more there  is  no  implication,  except  in  4,4,8  that  only 
two  alternatives  are  referred  to,  so  that  we  might 
translate  "for  example,  this  or  that." 

Of  the  same  type  with  I^ivy  2,51,9  cited  p.  84,  is 
Virgil,  Aen.  10,9  f 


lOO  The  Latiyi  Pronouns. 

Quis  metus  aut  hos 
Aut  hos  arma  sequi  ferrumque  lacessere  suasit, 
in  which  it  is  a  matter  of  indifference  which  hos  re- 
fers to  RutuH    and  which   to  Troiani;  Persius  5,155 
Huncine  an  hunc  sequeris?  {cf.  Sil.  Ital.  4,353 f). 

Lastly  we  may  refer  to  the  cases  in  which  the 
choice  is  not  Hmited  to  two  objects,  the  words  coming 
to  mean  "  one— another  " ,  plural  "some — others". 
This  usage  is  found  chiefly  in  the  hexameter  poetry. 
See  Virgil,  Aen.  6,773  f. 

Hi   tibi   Nomentum  et  Gabios  urbemque  Fide- 

nam. 
Hi  Collatinas  imponent  montibus  arces; 
cf.  7,5o6ff. 

OUi ....  adsunt,  hie  torre  armatus  obusto, 
Stipitis  hie  grauidi  nodis:  quod  cuique  repertum 
Rimanti,  telum  ira  facit; 

and  1,106  Hi his ;  Geor.  4,84 f.   aut  hos  aut 

hos;  Hor.  Epist.   1,17,395.   hie | |  Hie ; 

Lucan2,3ohae hae ;  252  f.  Hos |  Hos j 

3,687  I  Hie  ... .  I  Hi  ....  ;    6,198-200  I  Hunc  . .  . .  | 
Hunc...   ;  7,375  f.  haec  .- .  |Haec....;  8,196  |  Hos 

hos ;   10,489  hos. .  .  .hos ;  Sil.  Ital.  is  not 

less  fond  of  the  correlation.     For  Statins  see  Thebais 
2,246;  7iof. 

The  usage  admits  naturally  of  extension  to  three 

or  more  members,  as  in  Virgil,  Geor.  2,505-8  hie 

hie hunc.  ..;  Aen.  7,473f.  hunc hunc. .  ..hunc 

;    Hor.    Epist.    2,2,67    hie  .  .  .hie. .  .  .hie hie 

;  Lucan  2,154-7  liic hie hie ;  Stat.  Sil. 

4,4, 15 f.    hos. .  .  .hos. .  .  .hi. .  . . 


The  Correlation  hie — hie.  loi 

From  the  prose  writers:  Florus  2,33(4, 12), 52  hos 

hos. .  .  .hos. .  . .       In    New  Test.    Matth.    13,22 

T.oiET. .  .  .6  !xi'^ . .  .  .6  di . .  .  .6  di . .  .  .\s  rendered  in  the 
codex  Bobbianus  (now  Taitrinensis  k)  hoc ....  hoc  au- 
tem....hoc  autem....,  in  all  other  existing  MSS. 
(the  Palatinus  e,  an  African  translation,  has  a  lacuna 
at  this  point)  aliud  quidem ....  aliud  autem ....  aliud 
autem  (or  uero)....  In  the  parallel  passage  13,8 
even  k  and  e  read  aliut ....  aliut ....  aliut ....  In 
Matth.  8,9  the  Vulgate  huic ....  alio ....  represents 
TiiOTw ....  akkw  .... 

Ivike  hie ....  hie ....  ille . .  .  .ete.,  this  series  also 
admits  indefinite  nouns  and  pronouns.  Curtius  9,9, 
12  hi..  .  .hi. .  .  .quidam. .  . . ;  Stat.  Theb.  3,129-31 
hae ....  hae ....  pars ....  pars  • .  ■ . ;  Lucan  10,128  ff .  hos 
....  alios  ....  pars  ....  pars  ....  inuentus  ....  fortior 
aetas.  Tacitus  has  a  variety  of  such  expressions, 
especially  in  the  Annals,  e.  g.,  14,8,2  hi. .  .  .hi. .  .  .alii 
....  quidam . .  . . ;  1,18,1  hi ....  hi ... .  plurimi . .  . . ;  2 , 
13,4  hie. ..  .alius. ..  .plurimi. .. .;  4,50,2  his. ..  .aliis 
. . .  .et  erant  qui. .  . . ;  13,39,14  hos. .  .  .alios. .  .  .mul- 
tos. .  . . ;  Hist.  3,55,9  his. .  .  .alios. .  ..{ef.  Ann.  6,1,9); 

Sat.    1,4,27  ff.    hie  . .  .  .hie  .  .  .hunc. .  . .  Albius hie 

. .  . . ;  Sil.  Ital.  17,482-5  hie. .  .  .hie. .  .  .hos. .  .  .liorum 
. .  .  .ipse  Rhoeteius;  Juvenal  1,46-49  hie. .  .  .hie. .  . . 
Marius .... 

The  corresponding  adverbial  forms  hie — hie,  etc., 
in  the  sense  of  alibi — alibi,  'ivda  ij.h — hda  3i,  like  the 
adverbial  forms  hie — illic,  have  a  much  wider  range  of 
usage  than  the  adjectival  and  substantive  forms,  but 
are  far  less  frequently  employed  than    the  hie — illic 


I02  The  Lathi  Pronou7is. 

type,  and  seem  to  be  a  later  development.  At  least 
they  appear  considerably  later  in  the  extant  litera- 
ture. 

i)  Hie — hie,  etc.,  is  rarely  met,  hinc — hinc  being 
used   in   its  stead.     Examples  are  Sil.   Ital.   8,395  f; 

3,547  f- 

2)  Hinc — hie.     See  Hor.  O.  1,34,14-16. 

3)  Hine — hine.  Type  a),  hinc  hinc  juxtaposed  and 
used  asj^ndetically,  seems  never  to  occur,  except  as 
refering  to  one  and  the  same  antecedent. 

b)  Asyndetic  and  not  juxtaposed:  The  two 
adverbs  may  both  modify  the  same  verb  or  may  be 
used  with  separate  verbs.  The  correlation  appears 
earlier  in  the  former  construction.  The  first  examples 
in  prose  literature,  as  is  well  known,  are  found  in  I,ivy. 
Earlier  than  the  first  decade  of  lyivy  is  Horace,  Sat. 
1,1,18  hinc  uos  uos  hinc  discedite,  which,  so  far  as 
I  am  aware,  has  always  been  interpreted  in  the  general 
sense:  "Go  ye  each  his  own  different  way."  I  am 
not  inclined,  however,  to  follow  the  traditional  render- 
ing, which  takes  hinc  .  .  .hinc  in  the  sense  of  hinc  .  ■  • 
illinc,  or  more  exactly  either  hac — iliac  or  illuc  .  . . 
illuc,  but  would  for  several  reasons  make  hinc  in  both 
instances  refer  to  the  speaker,  Jupiter,  and  retain  its 
normal  meaning  "hence,  hence,  both  of  you."  Livy 
is  therefore  antedated  in  this  usage  not  even  by  a 
poet.  Ei\T  uses  the  words  in  most  cases  to  bal- 
ance a  pair  of  nouns  that  stand  in  the  same  construc- 
tion. The  passage  1,13,2  hinc  patres  hinc  uiros 
orantes,  is  the  earliest  instance  of  the  usage  in  Eatin 
literature.  This  same  passage  stands  in  Aurel.  Vict. 
1,2,9  liiQC  patres  inde  coniuges    deprecatae.     Either 


The  Correlation  hie — hie.  103 

Victor  or  the  maker  of  the  Epitome  Liuiana'  felt  hinc 
— ^hinc  as  an  unusual  expression  and  altered  it  to  the 
more  familiar  and  more  prosaic  hinc — inde.  The 
same  type  of  construction  is  found  3,23,7  h.  Uolscos 
h.  Aequos.  6,15,3;  8,35,8;  21,8,8;  22,47,2;  25,15,14; 
25,29,3;  26,48,12;  28,9,13;  29,33,5;  30,19,8.  In  two 
cases  we  have  instead  of  single  substantives  a  phrase 
of  two  or  more  words  correlated  by  hinc — hinc:  26, 
37,2  hinc  in  Hispania  aduersae  res,  hinc  prospera  in 
Sicilia;  10,39,16  hinc  foederum  cum  Romanis  ictorum 
testes  deos,  hinc  iurisiurandi  aduersus  foedera  sus- 
cepti  execrationes  horrens.  I^ater  examples  of  such 
an  extended  phrase  are:  Stat.  Theb.  1,383  f;  Sil.  Ital. 
10,530-2;  2,273-5.  The  brief  expressions  in  which 
two  substantives  are  correlated  reappear  in  Curt.  9,4, 
10  bis;  5,10,9;  5,4,28;  8,13,11  (in  the  second  and  third 
instances  the  substantive  stands  in  the  Ablative); 
Lucan  7,533;  9,861;  Sen.  Dial.  2,2,1  (two  proper 
names);  Stat.  Sil.  1,2,235;  Theb.  1,193  (two  proper 
names,  each  with  an  adjectival  modifier);  3,564  f;  Sil. 
Ital.  1,522;  4,38of;  550;  562;  5,44;  7,526;  Juvenal  i, 
119  hinc  toga,  calceus  hinc  est.  Slightly  varied  are 
Sil.  Ital.  1,561. 

Hinc  puer  inualdique  senes,  hinc  femina; 
and  4,414 

Hinc  laeua  frenos,  hinc  dextra  corripit  arma. 

The  phrase  is  very  seldom   employed  to  correlate 

1  Dr.  Henry  A.  Sanders,  whose  special  study  of  the  Epi- 
tome enables  him  to  speak  with  authority  on  the  subject,  has 
been  unable  to  find  any  evidence  either  to  prove  or  to  disprove 
the  assumption  that  the  writer  of  the  Epitome  made  the  change. 
The  balance  of  probability  would  perhaps  assign  it  to  Victor. 


I04  The  Latin  Pronotins. 

two  verbs:    Manil.  2,4i9f;  Lucan  io,537f.;  Stat.  Sil. 
2,2,ii6f.;  Sil.  Ital.  i,222f.;  2,273-275. 
c)  With  copula: 

Hinc  et  hinc,  widely  separated:  lyUcr.  6,88  f. 
hinc....et  hinc;  in  juxtaposition:  Hor.  Epod.  2,31 
(trudit);  5,97  (saxis  petens);  Petron.  79?;;  Stat.  Sil. 
4,3.47  (coactis). 

Hinc  atqiie  hinc  stands  almost  invariably  at 
the  beginning  of  a  verse:  Virg.  Aen.  1,162  (rupes 
minantur);  4,447  (heros  tunditur);  12,431  (suras  inclu- 
serat);  Germanicus,  Arat.  Phaen.  49  (torquet);  Stat. 
Sil.  2,2,14  (perrumpunt);  Theb.  7,479  (natae);  12,759 
(natauit);   Sil.  Ital.  4,274  (dederunt);   1,375  (instent). 

Hinc. .  .  .at  hinc  (widely  separated):  Stat.  Sil. 

3.5,74^- 

l^xvid. .  .  .atque  hinc  (widely  separated);  Sil. 

Ital.  17,251. 

It  is  easy  to  see  how  hinc — hinc  took  on  its  indefi- 
nite meaning.  In  the  passage  from  Horace's  Satires 
cited  above,  both  groups  of  persons  are  bidden  to 
depart  from  the  speaker.  Perhaps  there  is  no  notion 
in  the  speaker's  mind  of  the  direction  which  each 
person  addressed  is  about  to  take.  On  the  other 
hand  it  may  be  an  essential  part  of  the  speaker's 
thought  that  they  depart  in  different  directions.  In 
proportion  as  this  second  thought  is  more  or  less 
prominent,  in  just  so  marked  a  degree  does  the  phrase 
take  on  the  meaning  "to  one  place — to  an  (the)  other." 
As  a  rule,  however,  in  the  examples  cited  above,  the 
word  hinc  has  entirely  lost  its  special  implication  of 
movement  in  a  direction  away  from  the  speaker,  and 
is  already  synonymous  with  an  indefinite  hie. 


The  Correlation  ille — ille.  105 

3)  Hue — hue.  The  two  words  imply,  of  course, 
motion  toward  the  speaker.  This  meaning  offers  a 
serious  bar  to  the  process  of  development  just  out- 
lined, that  takes  place  in  the  case  of  hinc — hinc. 
Nevertheless  the  phrase  did  take  on  an  indefinite  force, 
and  although  our  earliest  example  (Catullus  61,34 

Ut  tenax  edera  hue  et  hue 
Arborem  implicat  errans) 

considerably  antedates  I^ivy's  hinc — hinc,  it  is  paral- 
leled by  L,ucretius  hinc  et  hinc  (6,88  f.),  which  phrase 
may  have  exercised  no  weak  influence  toward  hasten- 
ing its  development.  Examples  of  the  usage  are  very 
rare.     I  know  of  only  six:  Hor.  Epod.  4,9 

. .  .  .ora  uertat  h.  et  h.  euntium; 

Sen.  Med.  385  (recursat);  Stat.  Sil.  1,3,38  (hue  oculis, 
hue  mente  trahor);  Sil.  Ital.  9,360  (it  seges  nutans); 
614  (iactas). 

4)  Hac — hac,  like  hue — hue  is  a  poetical  usage,  and 
very  rarely  met.  Naevius,  Astiologa;  Propert.  1,3,14; 
Horace,  Epist.  2,2,75;  Virgil,  Aen.  i,467f.;  Stat. 
Theb.  9,762.  I  know  of  only  one  instance  in  prose  lit- 
erature, Pompeius,  Comment,  in  Donat.  p.  105,31  (K). 

Adverbial  series  of  three  members  are  found:  Luc. 
1,176-181  hinc.  ..hinc.  ..hinc.  ..;  Sil.  Ital.  1,185- 
187  do;  5,198  do. 

3.  Ille — ille.  As  our  discussion  of  the  two  cor- 
relations just  dismissed  has  been  rather  full,  we 
may  treat  the  present  one  very  briefly,  the  more  so 
because  it   shows  about  the   same   range  of  meaning 

vidth  the  others  and  is  of  quite  infrequent  occurrence. 

16 


io6  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

Parallel  to  the  construction  hie  uersus  Plauti  non. 
est,  hie  est  is  Terence,  Phor.  332 

Quia  enim  in  illis  fructus  est,  in  illis  opera  ludi- 
tur. 
The  same  usage  is  found  in  Cicero,  Rose.  Amer.  59 
(cited  in  Miihlmann's  Thesaurus)  quaesisse,  num  ille 
aut  ille  defensurus  esset;  De  Inuent.  1,98  [illud 
docuimus,  illud  plane  fecimus].  Suetonius  (Jul.  41) 
quotes  from  Julius  Caesar,  commendo  nobis  ilium  et 
ilium.  Martial  7,10,1  f.  offers  ille  uel  ille;  while  Ma- 
nilius  2,185 

Ille  senescentis  ueris,  subeuntis  et  ille, 
in  which  a  definite  antecedent  is  referred  to,  is  paral- 
leled by  Quint.   2,8,11  in    illo in    illo ;  3,6,93 

ille ille ;   11,3,168;   Lucan   4,636  f.;    ille  (An- 
taeus)   I  Ille  (Heracles);  cf.  612;  Plin.  Epist.  1,23, 

3  uel  ille  cui  adessem  uel  ille  quem  contra;  cf.  6,29,15 

Miseni  illud  ruisse. .  .  .illud  ardere;  Juv.  10,91  illi 

I  Ilium..  .. 

The  type  represented  by  Virg.  Aen.  10,9  (hie  .  . . 
hie)   is   closely  paralleled  by  Sil.  Ital.  4,317  S-   Itali 

Tyrias alas.       |  Aut  illi |  Aut  illi. 

With  entirely  indefinite  series  it  occurs  in  Manil. 

2,517-19 

Audire  ut  cupiant  alios,  aliosque  uidere, 
Horum  odio,  nunc  horum  idem  ducantur  amore, 
Illis  insidias  tendant,  captentur  ab  illis, 
an  important  passage,  as  showing  ille — ille  entirely 
synonymous  with  hie — hie  and  alius — alius.  Further 
examples  are:  Sen.  Sent.  9,2,16  nemo  paene  sine 
uitio  est:  ille  iracundus  est,  ille  libidinosus;  Petron. 


The  Correlation  ille — ille.  107 

123,226.  In  the  light  of  these  passages  WOlfflin's 
proposal  to  read  in  Tac.  Ger.  14,11  f.  ille. .  .  .ille  in- 
stead of  illam ....  ilium  can  meet  with  no  objections 
on  the  score  of  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  ille. .  .  .ille. 
Pompeius,  Commentum  in  Donat.  has  on  p.  204, 7(K) 
et  ilia  breuis  est  et  ilia;  p.  205,16  et  illud  et  illud. 
Trimembral  series  occur  in  Petron.  115  and  Juv. 

2,93;  95-99-  

Note;  to  Chapter  II. — The  rivalry  between  hie, 
is  and  ilie  is  also  apparent  in  the  usage  of  these  words 
in  legal  formulae  of  the  types: 

a.  Ilia  die,  ilia  hora  ab  urbe  sum  exiturus  (in  imi- 
tation of  the  style  of  imperial  edicts).  Script.  Hist. 
Aug.  Alex.  Sev.  45,2;  cf.  Arnob.  4,i9/>  cum  legitis  ex 
illo  patre  atque  ex  ilia  niatre  deus  ille  est  proditus. 

b.  Earn  alitem,  ea  regione  caeli  et  eius  dei  nuntiam 
uenisse,  lyivy  1,34,9. 

c.  Ex  hac  familia  in  hanc  familiam. 

The  writer  finds  it  necessary  to  postpone  the  dis- 
cussion of  these  usages  to  a  later  date,  when  he  shall 
have  a  fuller  collection  of  data  at  his  disposal.  They 
are,  of  course,  intimately  connected  with  the  formulae 
hie — hie  and  ille — ille  just  discussed. 

Another  correlation  hinc — inde  should  not  be  over- 
looked in  this  connection.  The  writer  hopes  in  the 
near  future  to  publish  a  history  of  this  phrase  and 
throw  new  light  upon  the  development  of  the  other 
correlations  discussed  in  this  section,  both  by  compar- 
ing them  with  hinc — inde  and  by  continuing  the  study 
of  their  development  down  to  the  seventh  century. 


CHAPTER  III.    ISTE. 


CHAPTER  III.     ISTE. 

The  weakening  in  the  meaning  of  hie,  necessarily- 
brought  about  by  its  frequent  use  as  a  substitute  for 
is,  resulted  in  an  effort,  unconscious  of  course,  on  the 
part  of  the  users  of  the  language,  to  find  another 
word  to  take  its  place.  Ille,  with  its  strong  demon- 
strative force,  was  too  remote  in  meaning  from  hie  to 
serve  this  purpose.  So  recourse  was  had  to  iste. 
Since  this  last  pronoun  was  very  extensively  used  as  a 
substitute  for  hie  (which  it  eventually  almost  entirely 
displaced) ,  it  may  very  properly  be  discussed  immedi- 
ately after  hie.  The  usage  iste  =  hie  forms  the  main 
subject  of  the  remarks  of  the  present  chapter,  at  the 
conclusion  of  which,  however,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
call  attention  to  two  other  peculiarities  in  the  usage  of 
the  word. 

While  no  general  agreement  has  been  reached  as 
to  the  etymology  of  this  pronoun,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  there  is  much  fuller  consensus  of  opinion 
on  the  point  than  existed  a  few  years  ago.  In  1870 
Johann  Kvicala  in  his  Untersuchungen  auf  dem  Ge- 
biete  der  Pronomina,  (  =  Sitzungsber.  d.  Wien.  Akad. 
1870,  p.  137),  induced  by  the  extensive  use  of  the 
word  as  a  deurepdrptrov,  Urged  the  identity  of  the  -te 
in  iste  with  the  ablative  of  the  personal  pronoun  tu. 
He  seems  to  have  found  no  supporters  to  his  view, 
although    Netusil    in    Archiv    f.    lat.    Lexikogr.    u. 


112  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

Gramm.  VII,  579  ff.  argues  for  ti,  dative.  It  is  not 
necessary,  as  von  Planta  following  Danielsson  has 
pointed  out  (Grammatik  der  oskisch-umbrischen  Dia- 
lecte  II,  423),  to  assume  this  etymology,  in  order  to 
explain  the  peculiar  character  of  iste.  Spanish  esso 
(from  ipse)  is  used  as  a  deurspo-pcTov  implying  contempt. 
(Cf.  also  pp.  1565.  below.)  No  more  satisfactory  is  the 
proposal  cited  in  the  third  edition  of  Neue's  Formen- 
lehre,  11,396,  from  Stolz,  Lateinische  Grammatik,  p. 
216,  that  the  second  element  of  iste  is  the  suffix  -pte. 
In  the  second  and  third  editions  of  his  grammar  Stolz 
returns  to  the  view  concerning  the  last  element  of  the 
pronoun  advanced  by  Corssen,  who  (Ueber  Aussprache, 
Vocalismus  und  Betonung  der  lateinishen  Sprache  II, 
843,  2d  edition)  writes:  "Das  dem.  Pron.  -tu-s,  -ta-, 
-tu-d,  von  dem  selbstandig  die  Accusative-formen 
tum,  tam  mit  adverbialer  Bedeutung  erhalten  sind, 
ist  enklitisch  an  die  Nominative  Form  i-s  des  Pro- 
nominal-stammes  i-  gefiigt  in  i-s-tu-s,  iste."  This 
element,  according  to  Danielsson,  Pauli's  Altitalische 
Studien,  III,i58ff.,  represents  in  the  Nom.  sg.,  masc. 
and  fem.  an  original  -so-,  -sa-  (cf.  Brugmann's  Grun- 
driss,  1,426,  Anm.  2 — this  note  does  not  appear  in  the 
second  edition).  The  first  two  letters  of  iste  are 
resolved  by  Schweizer-Sidler,  Gram,  der  lat.  Sprache 
1,122,  2d  ed.,  into  i-,  pronominal  root  and  so-,  sa-,  pro- 
nominal stem,  and  the  final  syllable,  is  explained  as 
representing  original  -se,  -so  "nach  dem  Neutrum  und 
den  iibrigen  Casus  ins  Masc.  und  Fem.  des  Nom.  sg. 
eingedrungen."  This  last  derivation,  which  connotes 
a  later  origin  for  iste,  is  the  most  satisfactory  from  a 
semasiological  standpoint;    and  best  accounts  for  the 


Iste  as   osurepdrptTov.  II3 

strong  demonstrative  force  of  iste,  that  has  enabled  it 
to  maintain  until  today  (cf.  Spanish  este)  its  distinct 
deictic  character. 

It  may  now  be  regarded  as  beyond  dispute  that 
one  of  the  most  important  elements  of  the  meaning  of 
iste,  in  the  ante-Augustan  periods  at  least,  is  its  dis- 
tinct reference  to  the  second  person,  i.  e.,  to  something 
having  a  direct  connection  with  the  person  addressed, 
or  (which  for  our  present  purposes  is  practically  the 
same  thing)  conceived  by  the  subject  to  have  such  a 
relation.  Joseph  Bach,  whose  examination  of  the 
usage  of  the  demonstrative  pronouns  in  the  archaic 
period  is  very  tliorough,  maintains  that  the  word 
occurs  in  no  passage  in  this  period  without  bearing  a 
distinct  reference  to  the  second  person.  It  is  further 
claimed  that  in  Cicero  the  word  always  has  this  force. 
On  this  point  see  Landgraf's  note  366  c  on  Reisig's 
Vorlesungen  iiber  die  Lateinische  Sprachwissenschaft 
111,97  f.,  where  Kvicala,  op.  cit. — particularly  p.  133 
— is  cited  with  approval. 

One  of  the  most  palpable  bits  of  evidence  that 
seems  to  prove  the  correctness  of  this  view,  is  the  atti- 
tude of  the  Roman  historians  toward  the  pronoun. 
In  Caesar,  for  example,  the  word  occurs  only  once  (B. 
G.  7.77).  and  then  in  an  oration  inserted  in  his  narra- 
tive. Similarly  it  occurs  only  in  direct  address  in 
Sallust,  since  in  Frag.  Hist.  1,49  (Maurenbr.)  the 
words  uacuam  istam  urbem  seem  to  be  a  portion  of 
the  address  of  a  Samnite  to  his  fellows.  The  same  is 
true  of  Nepos,  Curtius  and  Livy  (at  least  in  books 
1-40).     In   the  Bellum   Hisp.  9,1,  ista  is  a  conjecture 

for  the  traditional  ita,  and  has  been  changed  to  ilia  in 

17 


114  T^^  Latin  Pronouns. 

the  best  modern  editions.  In  contrast  with  the  histo- 
rians, we  find  that  Cicero  in  his  orations,  letters  and 
dialogues  and  Varro  in  his  dialogue  on  Agriculture 
make  very  extensive  use  of  iste.  This  goes  to  show 
that  the  writers  of  historical  narrative  had  little  occa- 
sion to  employ  the  word.  That  the  same  is  true  of 
ordinary  exposition,  is  clearly  proved  by  the  use  of 
iste  in  the  Rhetorica  ad  Herennium.  In  this  anony- 
mous treatise  iste  occurs  upward  of  ninety  times.  Of 
these  instances  only  four  fall  to  the  first  three  books, 
while  the  other  eighty  odd  are  found  in  the  fourth 
book.  The  explanation  is  simple.  The  fourth  book, 
which  treats  of  elocutio,  is  largely  made  up  of  illus- 
trations of  various  figures  of  rhetoric,  and  these  ex- 
amples, with  few  exceptions,  are  drawn  from  orations 
or  are  imitations  of  the  oratorical  style.  We  must 
not  forget  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  book  the 
Auctor  ad  Herennium  lays  great  stress  on  the  fact 
that  he  employs  his  own  illustrations  and  not  those 
cited  by  others,  counting,  apparently,  as  his  own  those 
which  he  translated  from  the  Greek  {cf.  4,7,10,  where 
he  especially  takes  credit  for  translating  the  Greek 
technical  expressions  used  in  rhetoric).  In  this  con- 
nection I  cannot  refrain  from  making  the  suggestion, 
that  the  Roman  teachers  of  rhetoric  are  to  some  ex- 
tent, and  perhaps  largely,  responsible  for  the  very 
extensive  use  made  of  this  word  by  the  orators.  Any 
one  who  reads  attentively  the  large  number  of  made- 
up  examples  of  figures  of  rhetoric  in  the  Auctor,  can 
scarcely  fail  to  be  convinced  of  this.  Iste  becomes 
inseparable  from  them  and  recurs  with  a  mechanical 
mono  ton}'.     Compare  also  the  frequent  repetition  of 


Iste  as  dtoTspurptTO'^.  115 

iste  in  the  first  ten  chapters  of  book  4  of  this  work, 
where  it  refers  in  each  instance  with  disparaging  force, 
to  those  whose  views  are  combatted  by  the  Aiictor. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  and  of  the  pedagogical 
convenience  of  the  ordinary  rule  of  grammar  which 
makes  hie,  iste  and  ille  correspond  to  the  first,  second 
and  third  persons  respectively  of  the  verb,  it  is  not 
surprising  to  find  the  statement  repeated  in  all  our 
school  grammars.  It  remains  on  the  whole  true,  but  I 
shall  propose  below,  page  158,  an  important  modifica- 
tion of  the  rule,  and  shall  call  attention  to  the  neces- 
sity of  discriminating  between  the  use  of  the  word  in 
direct  address  on  the  one  hand,  and  its  use  as  a  'horpo- 
TfjiTiiv  on  the  other.  Still,  notwithstanding  the  truth 
of  the  general  statement  in  so  far  as  it  refers  to  the 
"Golden,"  or,  at  least,  to  the  Ciceronian  Latinity,  but 
it  is  misleading,  and  in  fact  censurable  to  imply  by 
one's  silence  that  the  usage  of  the  so-called  Silver 
Latin  is  identical  with  that  of  the  Ciceronian  period. 
Schmalz  forms  the  only  exception  to  the  general  prac- 
tice and  his  modifications  of  the  rule, — depending  as 
he  was  obliged  to  do  on  second-hand  information, — 
are  far  from  exact.  The  only  and  the  earliest  exam- 
ple of  iste = hie  cited  by  the  erudite  Kiihner  in  his 
Grammatik  der  Latein.  Sprache  II  ^  454,  is  from  St. 
Augustine! — a  striking  commentary  on  the  state  of 
the  historical  grammar  of  the  Latin  language  in  1878. 
An  examination  of  the  whole  subject  is  therefore 
necessary,  the  more  so,  since  an  appreciation  of  the 
later  meanings  of  this  word  is  essential  to  a  proper 
understanding  of  the  works  of  several  of  the  "Silver" 
writers,  especially  Celsus,   Seneca   the   Younger    and 


ii6  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

the  poets.  In  the  following  discussion  of  the  subject, 
the  evidence  for  the  meanings  of  iste  is  adduced  in 
several  distinct  groups,  within  which  the  citations  are 
arranged  so  far  as  possible  in  chronological  order. 

A.    ISTE  =  HIC. 

The  earliest  evidence  of  a  weakening  of  the  force 
of  iste  as  a  deursporpiTov  is  found  in  the  collocation  iste 
tuus,  ista  tua  {cf.  Koziol,  Stil  des  Apiileius  p.  78), 
iste  uester,  etc.,  which  occurs  as  early  as  Plautus.  In 
Aniphitruo  285  Mercury  says  to  Sosia 

Ego  pol  te  istis  tuis  pro  dictis  et  male  factis, 

furcifer, 
Accipiam. 

Thirty-one  similar  instances  are  mentioned  by  Bach, 
op.  cit.  pp.  216  ff.  The  usage  once  established,  we  find 
it  in  Accius'  Telephus  8;  in  Varro,  Res  Rust.  3,2,5; 
in  Cicero  (in  the  orations  iste  tuus  twenty-seven 
times,  iste  uester  seven  times;  in  the  philosophical 
writings  iste  tuus  nine  times,  iste  uester  nine  times; 
see  Merguet's  Lexicon),  in  Catullus  71,3;  81,3;  116,7; 
in  lyivy  4,4,7  nobilitatem  istam  uestram;  in  M.  Aurel. 
{apnd  Fronto,  Epist.  1,3)  Frontonem  istum  tuum  and 
in  the  Christian  writers  Firmicus  Maternus  21,2  deus 
iste  uester;  Cyprian,  Epist.  3i,i/?i  ista  tua  caritate; 
Arnobius  2,5 1^?;  Planciades  Fulgentius,  Mitol.  i,  pr. 
22(M)  (=  p.  12,14  H)  ^e  tu  istam  tuam  satyram..  .. 
credas;  Gord.  Fulgentius  8(=  p.  156,141!)  quae  sunt 
ista  tua,  Deus,  secreta  misteria. 

At  a  later  period  the  Romans  found  it  necessary  to 
juxtapose  the  form  tibi  to  the  word  iste,  in  some  in- 
stances at  least,  in  order  to  secure  a  more  distinct 
reference  to  the  second  person.     Such,  at  least,  is  the 


Iste  =  hie.  wj 

explanation  of  the  Italian  codesto  (=  ecc[um]  -f-  tibi 
>ti  +  istu[m]). 

As  long  as  iste  was  used  for  emphatic  reference  to 
the  second  person,  its  usual  usage  would  naturally  be 
confined  to  cases  of  direct  address,  to  conversation,  for 
example,  to  orations  and  letters,  or  in  general  to 
passages  written  when  the  interest  of  the  author  was 
fixed  upon  the  person  addressed,  or  at  least  when  the 
latter  occupied  a  position  in  the  author's  consciousness. 
The  appearance  of  the  word  in  other  connections  than 
these  must  be  taken  as  an  indication  that  there  is  absent 
from  the  consciousness  of  the  user  any  such  element 
in  the  idea  group  that  is  associated  with  the  phonetic 
symbol  iste;  in  other  words,  that  iste  is  no  longer 
a  SevTEporptTir^. 

There  is  possibly  such  an  instance  in  Catullus  41,3 

Ameana  puella .... 

Tota  milia  me  decem  poposcit, 

Ista  turpiculo  puella  naso. 

There  seems  to  be  no  reference  to  the  second  person 
in  this  passage,  for,  although  in  line  five  the  poet 
addresses  the  friends  of  the  young  lady,  he  turns 
abruptly  to  them  and  apparently  has  no  thought  of 
them  in  the  first  four  lines.  If  there  is  no  reference 
to  the  friends,  we  should  then  have  to  assume  that  it 
is  the  reader  to  whom  he  appeals.  If  this  is  the  case, 
the  usage  would  illustrate  the  argument  set  forth  on 
p.  156  below.  Horace  in  Sat.  i,4,i3off.  uses  istinc  in 
the  sense  of  a  meis  uitiis.     The  passage  runs 

....  mediocribus  et  quis 
Ignoscas  uitiis  teneor;  fortassis  et  istinc 
Largiter  abstulerit  longa  aetas,  liber  amicus. 


ii8  The  Ldtiri  Pronouns. 

We  may  not,  however,  in  this  passage  regard  the  word 

as  used  with  the  absence  of  all  reference  to  the  second 

person,  since  the  phrase  quis  ignoscas  containing  the 

indefinite  second  person  may  be  taken  as  an  indication 

that    Horace   feels   himself   in   close   touch   with   his 

reader.     There  is  in  Virgil  only  one  passage  in  which 

the  word  occurs  outside  of  direct  address,  namely,  lo, 

504- 

Turno  tempus  erit,  magno  cum  optauerit  emp- 

tum 

Intactum  Pallanta  et  cum  spolia  ista  diemque 

Oder  it. 

The  passage  is  a  comment  of  the  poet  himself  on  the 
ruthless  slaughter  of  Pallas  {cf.  verse  502  nescia  mens 
hominum . .  . .  seruare  modum).  The  dark  prophecy 
gives  coloring  to  the  entire  sentence,  and  while  the 
main  cause  for  it  is  the  death  of  Pallas,  yet  the  taking 
of  the  balteus,  referred  to  by  the  words  spolia  ista,  is 
inseparable  from  the  whole,  and  in  my  opinion  ista 
decidedly  heightens  the  effect  that  the  poet,  rising  to 
a  lofty  dignity  of  tone  characteristic  of  the  orator,  is 
desirous  of  producing.  This  may  be  regarded  as  an 
almost  certain  case  of  the  use  of  the  word  outside  of 
direct  address,  since  little  weight  can  be  attached  to 
the  reading  jpj^  of  the  Mediceus.  There  is  likewise 
but  a  single  passage  in  Manilius  in  which  iste  is  used 
in  this  way,  namely,  1,492-4. 

Quis  credat  tantas  operum  sine  numine  moles 
Ex  minimis  caecoque  creatum  foedere  mundum? 
Si  fors  ista  dedit  nobis,  fors  ipsa  gubernet. 
As  the  indefinite  second  person  excuses  the  use  of  the 
word  in  Horace,  so  may  the  rhetorical  question  and 


Iste  =  Hie.  119 

the  subjunctive  gubernet  justify  its  use  here.  These 
are  the  only  passages  of  this  kind  that  I  have  found 
in  the  poets  up  to  the  time  of  Tiberius  (I  have  omitted 
to  examine  some  of  Ovid's  writings,  e.  g.,  Ars  Ama- 
toria,  Medicamina  Faciei,  Halieutica). 

Velleius  Paterculus  2,7,3  cannot  be  made  use  of, 
since  istius  is  here  a  conjecture  of  Cludius  for  Amer- 
bach's  ipsius.  Illius  would  be  more  in  accordance 
with  the  classical  usage.  As  iste  occurs  no  where  else 
in  Velleius,  I  prefer  not  to  accept  the  reading.  This 
being  the  case,  the  earliest  prose  writer  to  emplo}'  the 
word  outside  of  direct  address  is  Valerius  Maximus, 
who  offers  no  less  than  ten  instances:  4,3/r.  (in  a  pas- 
page  expressing  contempt);  4,3,6  (contempt);  2,8,7 
(regret);  7,1,2  (censure);  7,8,6  (falsehood);  8,1,3  (un- 
desirability);  9,14/r.  (disapproval);  5,1,11  (praise); 
6,^Ext.  I  (praise);  2,2,8  (high  praise).  There  are  in 
addition  four  passages  in  Velleius  in  which  the  use  of 
iste  may  be  regarded  as  justified  by  its  occurrence  in 
rhetorical  questions.  They  are  5,3,2*5;  5,6/r.;  ^fiExt. 
4;  9,1,5.  Celsus  has  followed  in  the  foot-prints  of 
Velleius,  but  has  gone  farther.  Particularly  striking 
is  8,12  (=  p.  354,16  Dar.)  reposito  osse,  si  cum  dolore 
oculorum  et  ceruicis  iste  casus  incidit,  ex  brachio  san- 
guis mittendus  est.  Cf.  also  i,pr.  (pp.  2,1;  3,1;  5,23; 
6,6;  12;  9,29;  11,16;  17;  20  isti. .  .  .ipsi).  Instances 
of  this  usage  from  Seneca  the  Younger  are  cited  by 
Hoppe,  Program,  Lauban,  p.  8,  with  the  words:  "Her- 
vorzuheben  ist  bei  Seneca  der  hiiufige  Gebrauch  von 
iste,  ohne  dass  dessen  besondere  Bedeutung  bewahrt 
wird."  Pliny  the  Elder  does  not  differ  essentially 
from  his  predecessor  in  polyhistory,  as  may  be  seen  by 


I20 


The  Latin  Pronoiais. 


reference  to  the  following  passages:  Praef.  28;  2,85; 
139;  141;  7,132;  9.129;  10,137;  13,23;  125;  14,9;  91; 
115  II  ita  cod  d  ||;  27,8;  28,6;  8;  229;  29,11;  24;  30, 
10;  13;  and  is  followed  by  Martial  (1,84,3),  Quintilian 
(see:  9,4,32;  2,40;  10,3,24),  Tacitus  (Agr.  40,10;  Ann. 
16,16,7 — the  only  instances  in  Tacitus)  and  Florus 
(2, 13(4,2), 13). 

We  may  now  proceed  to  establish  its  usage  as  a 
■KpwTorptTov,  i.  e.,  2iS  a  synonym  of  hie,  and  then  dis- 
cuss the  chronological  and  geographical  limits  of  the 
usage  and  consider  the  semasiological  character  of  the 
changes  in  meaning  involved. 

There  are  at  least  ten  further  lines  of  evidence, 
that  make  the  existence  of  an  iste  -putzorpi-ov  certain. 
In  the  first  place  we  find  as  early  as  Catullus  (see 
Schmalz  on  Reisig's  Vorlesungen  III,  Anm.  366  bb) 
some  pronoun  of  the  first  person  (usually  a  possessive) 
modifying  the  same  word  with  iste.  Examples  are: 
Catullus  17,21 

Talis  iste  mens  stupor  ni/  uidet,  nihil  audit, 

Ipse,  qui  sit. .  •  • ,  nescit; 
Virg.  Aen.  11,165 

Nee  uos  arguerim,  Teucri,  nee  foedera  nee  quas 

lunximus  hospitio  dextras:  sors  ista  (f.  e.,  the 
death  of  Pallas)  senectae 

Debita  erat  nostrae. 

Euander  is  here  speaking,  and  addresses  the  Trojans. 
This  practice  is  quite  common  in  the  correspondence 
of  Fronto  and  in  Apuleius.  From  the  former  may  be 
cited:  1,2  ista  mea  fortuna  . .  . .  istam  necessitatem 
meam..  ..ista  mea  uerecundia  (the  words  of  Marcus 


Iste  —  Hie.  1 2 1 

Aurelius);  1,7  orationem  istam  meam  (in  a  letter  of 
Fronto  himself ) .  Apuleius  off ers  us :  Met.  i,iisermo- 
nes  istos  nostros;  2,3  meis  istis  manibus;  6,22  (cited 
by  Goelzer,  Gramm.  in  Snip.  Sev.  Quaest.  p.  90, 
Anm.  i)  istud  pectus  meum.  In  a  letter  of  the  em- 
peror Aurelian  to  Probus,  apud  Script.  Hist.  August. 
Prob.  6,6,  the  soldiery  spoken  of  as  decimani  mei  are 
shortly  afterwards  referred  to  by  isti.  Further  exam- 
ples are:  Cyprian,  De  Oper.  et  Eleem.  20^  in  istis 
muneribus  meis;  and  Sulp.  Sev.  D.  176,3  regio  ista 
nostrorum.  This  usage  is  rare  during  the  pre- Au- 
gustan period  and  is  there  confined  to  the  poets. 

There  are  other  cases  in  which  the  reference  of  this 
pronoun  to  the  first  person  is  equally  clear,  although 
no  possessive  pronoun  is  added  to  it.  It  often  refers 
to  something  in  the  vicinity  or  even  in  the  possession 
of  the  writer  or  the  speaker,  or  to  something  in  which 
the  speaker  has  a  special  interest.  This  application  of 
the  word  is  found  in  Seneca  the  Younger,  I^ucan, 
Pliny  the  Elder  and  his  nephew,  Juvenal  and  Fronto, 
not  to  mention  the  later  writers.  The  elder  Pliny  in 
his  dedication  to  Vespasian  (sec.  18)  refers  to  his  work 
by  the  neuter  pliu-al  substantive  ista.  His  nephew  in 
a  letter  to  Caninius  from  the  author's  country  home 
(2,8,1)  writes,  studia  altissimus  iste  successus  adfatim 
suggerunt,  where  iste  sucessus  means  "this,  my  retired 
villa."  Rauschning,  De  Latinitate  L.  Ann.  Sen.  Phil. 
p.  70,  cites  instances  of  this  usage  from  Seneca.  Juve- 
nal 4,67  writes  iste  dies  "today"  for  hie  dies  or  hodie, 
and  6,295  (perhaps  in  order  to  avoid  confusion  with 
hinc  immediately  preceding  and  following)  istos  colles 

=:  the  seven  hills  of  Rome,  i.  e.,   "our  seven  hills", 
18 


122  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

in   9,131    called  his  collibus.     In   14,179,   where  we 

read 

"Uiuite  contentis  casulis  et  collibus  istis, 
O  pueri !"  Marsus  dicebat. .  .  .senex, 

istis  is  of  course  capable  of  being  interpreted  in  its 
normal  sense.  In  the  correspondence  between  Marcus 
Aurelius  and  Fronto  this  usage  becomes  quite  com- 
mon. Fronto  writes  p.  183  (N)  dum  istius  doloris 
expers  uitam  degerem,  meaning  the  pain  which  he 
himself  suffers  in  his  sickness.  In  the  letter  De  Ne- 
pote  Amisso  (p.  236  (?)  he  writes  casibus  miserrimis 
adflictus  sum ....  Plura  scribere  non  possem  isto  in 
tempore.  Probably  no  writer  of  the  second  century 
went  so  far  in  this  particular  as  did  Apuleius.  Espe- 
cially clear  are  Met.  i,i8iugulum  istum  dolui,  "my 
neck  ached";  2,14  f rater  mens  sub  istis  oculis  miser 
iugulatus  est,  "before  my  eyes".  An  interesting  par- 
allel is  afforded  by  Met.  2,5  omnem  istam  lucem  mundi 
and  Plautus'  lucescit  iam  hoc. 

It  is  here  desirable  to  cite  a  passage  from  Ober- 
meier,  op.  cit.  p.  15,  since  it  stands  in  need  of  some 
little  correction.  "Iste  hat  bei  I^ucan  die  iibrigen 
Demonstrativa  geradezu  verdriingt.  Denn  es  steht 
sogar  regelmiissig  statt  hie  bei  Verhaltnissen,  welche 
die  redende  Person  betreffen;  z.  B.,  3,126. .  .  .mit  ista 
potestas  bezeichnet  der  Volkstribun  Metellus  die 
eigene  Wiirde,  5,287 

Nil  actum  est  bellis,  si  nondum  comperit  istas 
Onmia  posse  manus 

die  Aufriihrer  meinen  die  eigenen  Hande,  5,588 

. .  .  .proderit  undis  |  Ista  ratis. 


Iste  =  Hie.  123 

der  Kahn,  auf  dem  sich  der  also  sprechende  Caesar 
befindet,  6,242 . .  .  .gladio. .  .  -isto  der  Csesarianer  weist 
auf  sein  eigenes  Schwert,  8,122....  6,158  ...328 
bello..  ..in  isto,  d.  i.  in  dem  gegenwartigen  Kriege, 
und  so  findet  sich  eine  Menge  Beispiele.  Da  nocli  Ver- 
gil iste  nur  in  Bezieliung  auf  die  2te  Person  gebraucht 
(Reisig,  Vorlesungen,  S.  361),"  (Should  read  'Haase 
zu  Reisig' .  Landgraf  also  seems  not  to  know  of  the 
passage  Aen.  X,  504  cited  above),  "in  der  Prose  aber 
dieser  Gebrauch  von  iste  statt  hie  nicht  vor  dem  Phi- 
losophen  Seneca  erscheint"  (See  on  the  contrary  the 
passages  quoted  below  from  Celsus,  Valerius  Maxi- 
mus  and  C.  I.  L,.,  I,  ist  ed.  No.  818),  "so  muss 
lyucan  einer  der  ersten  gewesen  sein,  welche  iste  statt 
hie  anwendeten."  Further,  p.  18  "Mit  iste — ille  be- 
dient  er  sich  des  Ausdruckes  einer  viel  spateren  Zeit." 
To  this  last  statement  Weymann  in  Archiv  III,  575 
enters  no  objection.  The  expression  is  as  old  as  Vale- 
rius Maximus  (see  below).  Touching  the  first  two 
sentences  of  Obermeier's  statement  it  maybe  remarked 
that  iste  is  not  so  common  in  lyUcan  as  it  is  in  Virgil, 
and  is  far  less  frequent  than  hie.  Concerning  the  fact 
that  iste  stands  only  four  times  in  I^ucan  outside  of 
direct  address  see  below. 

The  later  pagan  writers  do  not  make  such  exten- 
sive use  of  iste  as  do  Apuleius,  Fronto  and  Gellius, 
who  is  discussed  below.  Instances,  however,  of  the 
use  of  iste  as  TtpajrorpiTov  are  not  uncommon.  We  may 
cite  as  illustrations  the  anonymous  Declamatio  in  Cati- 
linam  86,  where  cursum  istum  uiolentae  orationis 
means  "the  rushing  course  of  my  eloquence";  Balbus 
Gromaticus  p.   91,10  iste  liber,    "my  book";   p.   94,5 


124  "^^^  Latin  Pronouns. 

mensura  ista. . .  .de  qua  loquimur.  In  a  letter  of  Pro- 
bus  ap7id  Script.  Hist.  Aug.  Probus  16,5  ab  istis  locis 
means  "from  Isauria,  where  I  am" — this  passage  could 
in  Cicero  mean  nothing  but  "from  the  place  where  you 
are" — ;  Script.  Hist.  Aug.  Firmus  1,2  istam  descrip- 
tionem,  "a  narration  like  mine";  Tacitus  13,4  (isto  = 
Tacito);  Macrobius,  Sat.  1,7,19  regionem  istam — "this 
land",  /.  e.,  where  we  live — quae  nunc  uocatur  Italia, 
regno  Faunus  obtinuit.  Similarly  in  Sat,  5,13,3  and  6 
iste  refers  to  the  Roman  poet  Virgil,  Macrobius'  coun- 
tryman, and  may  be  translated  "our  poet",  while  in 
the  second  paragraph  preceding.  Homer  is  referred  to 
by  ille,  and  a  few  pages  before,  the  two  are  contrasted 
by  the  words  hunc — ilium.  The  so-called  Gronovian 
scholiast  on  Cicero's  oration  for  Roscius  Amer.  17  uses 
usque  ad  istam  narrationis  partem  in  the  sense  "up  to 
the  present  point  in  my  address." 

The  patristic  literature,  like  Fronto  and  Apuleius, 
makes  rather  more  extensive  use  of  the  word  in  this 
meaning: 

Min.  Felix  18,11  iste  sermo,  "this  expression"; 

19,15  ista  quae  nostra  sunt,  '  'our  persuasion' ' ; 
40, 1  dum  istaec  igitur  apud  me  tacitus  euoluo; 

Cyprian,  De  Hab.  Virg.  \^p  isto  in  loco,  "at  this 
point  in  my  address' ' ; 

Tertullian,  De  Idol,  ig/*  in  isto  capitulo,  "in  this 
chapter' ' ; 

Commodiau  1,25,19  isto  libello,  "my  book"; 

Ambrose  1,8,32  F  nobis  excursus  iste  processit,  ut 
probaremus . .  . . ; 

Sulpicius  Severus,  Chron.  1,2,1  uoluminis  istius, 
"my  volumen"; 


Iste  =  Hie.  125 

M.   25,3  ista  {—  mea)  laudatio; 

27,6  opusculuni  istud  (=  meum); 
D.  1,18,2;  2(3),i6;  E.  2,8<?/5a^/.  a/.  In  this 
connection  consult  Lonnergren,  De  Syntaxi  S.  S.  p. 
10:  "pronomen  quod  est  iste  celeberrime  adhibet,  ut 
ad  agentem  personam  referatur,  quod  genus  loquendi 
apud  injSmae  aetatis  scriptores  uiguisse  constat." 

S.  Silv.  Peregrinatio  p.  87,27  hie  omnes  conuenire 
in  isto  loco;  85,29  hodie  nocte  ista; 

Cassian.  Inst.  5,1  quintus  nobis  iste  liber  produci- 
tur; 

Hilarian  in  his  Tractatus  in  Psalmos  often  refers 
to  the  particular  psalm  under  discussion  by  the  pro- 
noun iste,  e.  g.,  2,2m.  On  the  other  hand  in  Int. 
Psalm.  10  he  writes  hie  psalmus. 

To  these  citations  we  may  add  those  having  the  ad- 
verbial forms  istic  and  istinc.  The  earliest  instance, 
to  omit  Horace,  /.  c,  is  Juvenal  3,29,  where  istic 
means  '  'here  in  Rome' ' .  He  is  followed  by  Marcus 
Aurehus,  Ad  Frontonem  p.  34w(N)  istic  noctibus 
studeo;  Fronto  p.  2i2(N)  in  orationibus . .  .  •  sedulo 
curamus ....  sed  contra  istic  (/.  e. ,  in  the  branch  of 
literature  with  which  I  am  now  occupied);  Apuleius, 
Met.  2,20  Immo  uero  istic  ("in  this  city")  nee  uirtuti- 
bus  ullis  parcitur.  Instances  from  Cyprian  may  be 
found  by  consulting  Hartel's  index.  From  the  con- 
servative juristic  I^atin,  Heumann,  in  his  Handlexi- 
cons.  V.  iste  cites  istic  from  Dig.  29,2,71,9  (a  quota- 
tion from  Ulpian). 

Aside  from  this  group  of  instances,  there  exists  a 
large  number  of  passages,  in  which  iste  appears  in 
connections  normally  reserved  for  hie.     Valerius  Maxi- 


126  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

mus,  for  example,  in  passing  from  one  group  of  anec- 
dotes to  another  regularly  refers  to  those  just  related 
by  the  plural  haec,  and  to  those  which  follow  by  the 
form  ilia.  This  usage  occurs,  for  example,  in  books 
five  and  six,  and  is  exactly  paralleled  by  Cic.  Ad  Fam. 
12,2,2.  In  two  instances,  however,  he  departs  from 
his  usual  custom  and  writes  ista  instead  of  haec.  In 
3,8,2  we  read  ista  (/.  e.,  the  anecdotes  just  related) 
quidem  seueritatis,  ilia  (the  following)  uero  pietatis 
constantia  admirabihs;  in  5,4,3  auribus  ista  tam  prae- 
clara  exempla  Romana  ciuitas  accepit,  ilia  uidit  oculis. 
Lucifer  Carahtanus  writes  interchangeably  in  De  Reg. 

Apost.  2,3-5  hunc  Hieroboam  (p.   43,26),   istius 

Hieroboae  (p.  44,3), istum  H.  (44,18), isti  H. 

(45,25).  In  the  B  class  of  the  Scholia  Terentiana 
published  by  Schlee  we  find  frequently  recurring  ista 
secum  loquitur  and  haec  secum  loquitur.  Jordanes, 
in  Romana  23  reads  sub  istius  regni  tempore,  although 
more  often  he  writes  huius  regis  tempore  (so  18).  Com- 
pare also  26  hoc  regnante  with  46  sub  isto  rege. 

The  frequently  recurring  phrase  oozo^  6  /.uirixo^  has 
its  counterpart  (chiefly,  of  course,  in  the  patristic 
literature)  in  iste  mundus.  Although  hie  mundus  was 
the  classical  and  usual  form,  yet  even  in  Manilius 
(cited  above)  we  find  the  neuter  plural  ista  used  as  a 
synonym  of  it.  Iste  mundus  occurs  first  in  Cyprian, 
Ad  Dem.  ig^rin  isto  adhuc  mundo  et  hac  carne  con- 
stituti,  with  which  we  may  compare,  25  in  isto  adhuc 
mundo.     Other  examples  are: 

Ambrosius,  Ex.  1,4, 14  F.  Pharao  principem  istius 

mundi (A)  omnium  nationum  primum  est  Amaleck 

....     Uide  ne  principem  huius  mundi  accipere  debea- 


hte  —  Hie.  127 

mus;  cj.  i,8,3iE  in  iudicio  istius  mundi  ||  istis  (mundi 
om.  N)  II  ; 

Paulinus  Nolan.  Epist.   5,7(p.   29,29)  istum  mun- 

dum; 
Filastrius,  Heres.  Iviber  31,(3)2,  etc.; 
Hilarius  Pictav.  Tractatus  in  Psalm.  118,  Lamed, 

8  mundi  istius; 
Cassianus,    Institutes  4,14  istius  mundi.    "saepis- 

sime  hie  mundus",  Petsehenig  in  indice. 

Further  examples  may  easily  be  found  by  consulting 
the  indices  to  the  various  volumes  of  the  Vienna  Cor- 
pus Script.  Eccl.  Roman.  From  the  pagan  literature 
we  may  cite  Censorinus,  De  Die  Natali  4,4  sempiterno 
isto  mundo.     Similar  to  this  phrase  are: 

Min.  Fel.  1 1 ,  i  moles  ista,  "this  heaven  we  behold' '  ; 
34,5  ista  moles  =  hie  mundus; 

Commodian  i ,  3 ,  i  f . 

Cum  Deus  omnipotens  exornasset  mundi  na- 

turam 
Uisitare  uoluit  terram  ab  angelis  istam; 

Min.  Fel.  21,11  ista  genera tio; 
Commodian  1,26,25  istius  saeculi; 
Augustine,  Epist.  25,3.?  uitae  istius; 
Cyprian,  De  Mortal.   8  mortalitas  ista  communis; 

8  istic  in  hoc  mundo; 
19  istinc  de  hoc  mundo; 

In  these  passages  no  distinction  between  iste  and 
hie  based  on  the  presence  of  any  idea  of  depreciation 
or  contempt  in  the  former  can  be  established.  Indeed 
iste  is  not  infrequently  found  referring  to  the  Savior 
himself.     See  the  ancient  Latin  version  of  the  inter- 


128  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

polated  epistle  of  Ignatius  to  the  Philippians  5.  No 
objection  can  therefore  be  raised  on  this  ground  to 
Plasberg's  interpretation  of  me  isto  nomine  ditans  in 
Anth.  lyat.  664  (Riese),  "the  name  of  Christian"  {cf. 
Rhein.  Mus.  54,149);  nor  to  Thomas'  "nomen  Christi" 
or  "discipuli  tui"  {pp.  cit.  p.  316). 

Sentences  of  the  type  of  Nepos,  Them.  1,1  Themi- 
stocles,  Neocli  filius,  Atheniensis.  huius . .  .  .{cf.  Alcib. 
1,1;  Chab.  1,1  Chabrias  Atheniensis.  hie  quoque  in 
....;  Sallust,  Bell.  Cat.  5,1  Catulina,  nobili  genere 
natus,  fuit  magna  ui  et  animi  et  corporis,  sed  ingenio 
malo  prauoque.  huic  ab  adulescentia  . . . .  ;  Nepos, 
Epam.  4,1;  Eum.  12,3;  4)  occur  as  early  as  the  epi- 
taphs of  the  Scipios  (see  C.  I.  L.  Vol.  I,  Nos.  31  f. 

L  •  CORNELiO  •  L  •  F  •  SCIPIO 

AIDILES  •  COSOL  •  CESOR 

HONG  OINO  •  PLOIRVME  •  COSENTIONT  R{omae)..\ 

cf.  C.  I.  L.,  1,101 1.  ioi2.Wilm.  573)  and  continued  to 
be  a  favorite  of  the  writers  of  history  and  biography 
(see  Sallust,  op.  cit.  6,1;  18,4;  23,1-2;  25,1;  2;  Bell, 
lug.  35,2;  and  65,1-3;  Veil.  Pat.  2,41,1;  cf.  1,2,2 
and  Fritsch,  Der  Sprachgebrauch  des  Velleius,  Arn- 
stadt,  1876,  p.  18;  Valer.  Max.  1,8 Ext. ,8,  etc.;  Florus 
i,i(3).i;  (5)>2;  (7), 2;  1, 4(10), 2;  1, 25(2, 9), 2;  28(2, 12), 3; 
2, 2(14), 2;  10(22), 6(hi);  Sueton.  Rhet.  2;  Gram.  18; 
Trebellius  Pollio,  sacpe;  De  Uiris  Illustr.  32,3;  Victor, 
Hist.  Abbr.  15,1;  18,1;  31,1).  For  our  present  pur- 
poses it  is  a  matter  of  comparative  indifference  whether, 
as  has  been  suggested  by  an  eminent  German  Eatinist, 
this  usage  developed  under  the  influence  of  the  style 
of  the  Laiidationes  Funebres,  in  which  hie  would  natur- 


Iste  =  Hie.  129 

ally  and  normally  be  used  to  refer  to  the  person  of  the 
deceased  over  whom  the  discourse  was  pronounced,  or 
whether  it  is  to  be  regarded  simply  as  the  use,  in  a 
special  type  of  context,  of  this  pronoun  to  refer  to  an 
antecedent  not  actually  present,  but  present  only  in 
the  thought  or  imagination  {cf.  Priscian  III,  pp.  142  f . 
(K)  hie. . .  .etiam  de  absente  possumus  dicere,  ad  intel- 
lectum  referentes  demonstrationem).  Ohroq,  was  used 
in  precisely  the  same  way  by  the  Greeks,  in  the  shorter 
biographical  notices  of  prominent  writers  (it  seems  not 
to  occur  in  Plutarch's  Bioi  ]lapdXXy]Xoi)^  e.  g.,  in  the 
Bioq  SotpoxXiouq  printed  with  Dindorf's  Scholia,  and  in 
Suidas'  Lexicon,  s.  vv.  OooXic;  and  Owpuxiw^  et  al.  The 
thorough  establishment  of  the  usage  in  I<atin  litera- 
ture is  testified  to  by  its  occurance  as  late  as  Isidore, 
De  Ortu  et  Obitu  Patrum  §§5;  9;  10;  12;  18;  ig(/ ris); 
22;  35;  36;  4.0  et  alias.  In  spite  of  its  extensive  use, 
however,  it  was  obliged  to  share  its  position  with  iste, 
which  Isidore  wrote  instead  of  hie  not  infrequently, 
^•^•.  §§8;  11;  52.  Isidore  also  writes  indifferently 
§  15  Distat  autem  hie  locus  and  §  5  Distat  autem  locus 
iste.  Possibly  the  influence  of  his  sources  here  plays 
some  part,  as  he  quotes  them  extensively  ad  litteram. 
Instead  of  the  usual  hoc  modo  and  huius  modi  St. 
Augustine,  Epist.  7,2,3;!)  writes  isto  modo,  "as  fol- 
lows", and  Hilar.  Tractat.  in  Psalm.  2,2^  istius  modi. 
Aulus  Gellius  employs  istius  modi  more  than  twenty 
times  and  in  connections  implying  praise  as  often  as 
in  those  which  indicate  contempt.  In  many  cases  one 
might  write  for  it  huius  modi  apparently  without  mar- 
ring the  sense. 

Claudius  Mamertus  writes  for  "de  ea  re  hie  am- 

19 


130  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

plius  non  dicam"  now(<f.  ^.,  p.  I23,i9^)hmc  alias  and 
now  (seep.  31,6)  istinc  alias  {cf.  Vogel's  index  5.  v. 
istinc).  Precisely  so  also  Ennodius:  istinc  alias  p. 
5,23;    hinc   alias   pp.    52,7;    128,13;    140,14;    224,16; 

297,29;  317,7- 

Further  compare  Plautus,  Men.  799  hinc  stas,  illim 

causam  dicis  with  Claud.  Mamert.  p.  134, 15  E  illinc 
stare  et  istinc  dicere. 

In  Valerius  Maximus  3,2,3  we  read  hactenus  istud 
instead  of  the  usual  hactenus  hoc.  Lastly  we  may 
call  attention  to  the  appearance  in  Celsus  i,^r. 
(p.  9,29  D)  of  the  phrase  post  ista  instead  of  post  haec, 
which  occurs  as  early  as  Cicero,  Fr.  A,  III,22(Bait. 
and  K.),  and  later  in  Cyprian,  De  Domin.  Oratione 
■2.'] p\  Arnobius  4,36;  Commodian  1,29,3. 

The  falling  of  all  essential  lines  of  demarcation 
between  the  two  words  is  attested  by  the  passage  in 
Pompeius,  Comment,  in  Donatum  p.  122,341?.  de  dua- 
bus  syllabis  quattuor  hi  sunt:  pyrrhicius,  spondaeus, 
trochaeus,  et  iambus,  de  tribus  VII  isti  sunt:  tribra- 
chus,  molossus,  (?/c....de  quattuor  XVI  isti  sunt: 
proceleumaticus ....  There  are  similar  passages  in 
Filastrius,  Heres.  L/ib.  33,3  dicunt  et  dogma  ponentes 
ista,  "the  following",  and  Jordanes,  Get.  (33)170  quo- 
rum ordo  iste  ac  successus  fuit:  primum  Gyzericus, 
. . .  .sequens. . . .  In  Macrob.  Sat.  6,7,1  ista  =  "the 
preceding."  It  is  of  interest  to  note  that  estu  is  used 
in  this  way  in  the  Iguvian  Tablets  lib, 23  estu  iuku 
habetu,  "hanc  inuocationem  habeto",  Breal,  I^s  Ta- 
bles Eugebines  p.  274;  "istam  orationem  habeto", 
Biicheler,  Umbrica  p.  148.  Filastrius  in  transitions 
repeatedly  interchanges  the  two,  thus,  30  post  hunc; 


Iste  =  Hie.  131 

31  post  istum;  32  post  istos;  35  post  istum;  36  Cerin- 
thus  successit  huius  errori;  38  post  istum;  40  post 
hunc;  41  post  hunc;  42  post  istum;  44  post  hos,  etc. 

Of  not  less  interest  are  those  passages  in  which 
iste  and  hie  stand  in  one  and  the  same  sentence  refer- 
ring to  the  same  antecedent.  Examples  are  not  infre- 
quent. The  earliest  are  in  Celsus  2, 2d?  ille  solicitari 
debet,  cui  haec  noua  sunt;  aut  qui  ista  numquam  sine 
custodia  tuta  habuit;  5,28(p.  215,12  f.  D)  sed  ut  haec 
maximi  effectus  sunt,  si  cui  ista  non  adsunt. . . . ;  3,6 
should  not  have  been  cited  by  Matthias,  Index  s.  v., 
since  the  his  may  here  represent  an  original  iis  or  eis. 
So  also  Valer.  Max.  c^,i\Ext.\.  The  same  correlation 
occurs  in  Pliny's  Nat.  Hist.  2,85  incomperta  haec 
et  inextricabilia ....  si  cui  libet  ista  altius  persequi 
(though  we  shotdd  not  fail  to  observe  that  ista  is  here 
used  of  a  depreciated  antecedent  and  seems  almost  to 
be  equivalent  to  talis).  The  order  of  iste  and  hie  is 
reversed  in  Lactantius,  De  Ira  Dei  5,8  speciose  ista  po- 
pulariterque  dicta  et  multos  inliciunt  ad  credendum,  si 
qui  haec  sentiunt  (it  may  here  be  questioned  whether 
haec  does  not  stand  for  ea);  and  Hilarius,  Tractat.  in 
Psalm.  2,i3/>  iste  irae  sermo  et. . .  .haec  indignationis 
perturbatio.  A  return  to  the  other  order  is  found  in 
Calpurnius,  Eel.  1,9  f. 

Hoc  .  . . ,  Corydon,  nemus,  antra  petamus 
Ista  patris  Fauni; 

and  the  anonymous  Declam.  in  ly.  Serg.  Catilinam  85 
excitentur  hi  populi  {sc.  Carthaginienses,  Numantini, 
Graeci)  rursum  diuinitus,  atque  istae  urbes  redeant  in 
statum  uetustissimae  dignitatis;  cf.  Aug.  Epist.  108,11. 
Of  the  various  formulae  used  by  the  Romans  to 


132  The  Latm  Pronoims. 

express  contrasts,  perhaps  none  were  better  suited  to 
their  purposes  or  obtained  more  general  currency,  than 
the  familiar  hie — ille  {cf.  szipra,  pp.  79-96).  We 
should  therefore  expect  it  to  resist  strongly  the  en- 
croachment of  a  rival  on  its  sphere.  Nevertheless,  as 
early  as  Valerius  Maximus,  we  find  that  iste — ille  is 
beginning  to  make  headway  against  it,  as  was  seen 
above. 

We  must,  however,  be  on  our  guard  against  taking 
the  mere  presence  of  iste  in  contrast  with  ille  as  in 
itself  sufl&cient  evidence  of  its  coincidence  in  meaning 
with  hie.  This  error  has  not  infrequently  been  com- 
mitted; yet  a  contrast  between  ille  and  iste  in  its  class- 
ical sense  is,  of  course,  quite  as  possible  as  one  between 
tu  and  ille  or  iste  and  hie;  and  such  contrasts  are 
occasionally  found.  Iste — ille  occurs,  for  example,  in 
Livy  3,47,7;  22,60,27,  and  iste — hie  in  Plautus,  Rud. 
808  alter  istinc,  alter  hinc;  Cic.  Ad  Fam.  2,11,1  ista 

uestra haec nostratia  {cf.  3,10,3;  6,18,5  and  De 

Re  Pub.  1,31).  Again  it  is  equally  conceivable  that  a 
contrast  be  drawn  between  these  two  words,  in  which 
iste  has  neither  its  normal  classical  meaning  nor  its 
later  meaning  "this."  Such  an  instance  we  believe  to 
be  afforded  by  Seneca,  Epist.  47,4(=  5.6,4),  although 
at  the  same  time  conceding  that  there  is  room  here  for 
considerable  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  the  exact  mean- 
ing of  iste  {cf.  istos  qui  in  §  2  of  this  same  letter).  For 
the  period  of  the  "Silver  Latin,"  at  least,  we  should 
not  interpret  iste  in  the  correlation  iste — ille  as  r.pw- 
rdrp'-o'^,  if  there  is  not  colateral  evidence  sufficient  to 
prove  that  iste  approaches  the  meaning  of  hie.  In 
the  passages  cited  above  from  Valerius  Maximus,  there 


Iste  =■  Hie.  133 

is   colateral  evidence  enough  to  establish  this  usage. 

The  earliest  example  after  this  known  to  me  is  from 

Lucan  9,417  ff. 

....  Nam  cum  communiter  istae 
Kffundant  zephyrum,  boreae  latus  ilia  sinistrum 
Contingens  dextrumque  noti,  discedit  in  ortus, 
Eurum  sola  tenens. 

Here  istae  approaches  hie  in  meaning,  since  it  refers 
to  Africa  and  Europe,  the  continents  nearer  to  Rome, 
whereas  ilia  refers  to  Asia,  the  more  remote.  Simi- 
larly Martial  4,49,10  says  of  his  reading  public,  lau- 
dant  ilia  (Greek  literature)  sed  ista,  "my  epigrams", 
legunt,  and  Quintilian  8,5,24  in  drawing  a  contrast 
between  the  earlier,  ruder  attempts  of  the  Romans  at 
oratory  and  the  elaborate  speeches  of  his  own  time 
refers  to  the  former  by  ilium  horrorem  dicendi  and  the 
latter  by  istam  nouam  licentiam.  I  can  cite  no  exam- 
ple from  any  prose  writer  between  Valerius  Maximus 
and  Quintilian,  though  some  cases  may  exist  in  Celsus 
or  in  Pliny's  Natural  History,  books  4,5,16-22,31-37. 
Later  writers  are  not  so  chary: 

Gellius  20,1,4  non  enim  minus  cupide  tabulas  istas 
XII  legi  quam  illos  XII  libros  Platonis  de  legibus. 

Macrobius.     From  the  Saturnalia,  compare  5,2,15 

illic   (in   the   Iliad) hie   (in    the   Aeneid);     17    ille 

{i.  e.,  Homer)  hie  (Virgil)  with  5, 13,3  Homerus sig- 

nauit. . .  .at  iste  {i.  e.,  Virgil);  21  ille  cum  marino  motu 
et  littoreos  fluctus. .  .  .describit,  hoc  iste  praeteruolat. 

Script.  Hist.  Aug.  Balb.  7,7  (a  comparison  between 
Balbus  and  Maximus)  alterum  seuerum,  clementem 
alterum,  bonum  ilium,  istum  constantem,  ilium  nihil 
largientem,  hunc  affluentem  copiis  omnibus;  an  espe- 


134  ^'^^^  Latin  Pronouns. 

daily  interesting  passage  as  showing  iste ....  ille  in 
correlation  with  alterum. .  .  .alterum,  although  both 
refer  to  definite  antecedents. 

Itin.  Antonini  Plac.  p.  174,1  in  ista  uel  ilia  ripa. 

Ammianus  Marcellinus  16,12,47  Alamanni  robusti 
et  celsiores  milites. .  .  .dociles:  illi  feri....hi  quieti 
. .  . . ;  animis  isti  fidentes,  grandissimis  illi  corporibus 
freti.     Observe  the  chiastic  order. 

Codex  Parisinus  of  Placidus  Glosses  {apud  Gotz, 
Corpus  Gloss.  V,  p.  113,26)  longe  distat  •  ab  illo  sapi- 
ente  •    iste  indoctus. 

Jordanes,  Get.  10(66). 

This  correlation  is  especially  frequent  in  the  patris- 
tic literature.     It  occurs  as  follows: 

A.  Parallel  with  hie  .  .  .ille: 

Orosius,  Adv.  Pag.  2,2,10  Babylon. ..  .Roma. .. . 
ilia  (the  former — the  more  remote  in  space) ...  .ista, 
ilia. .  .  .haec. .  . . ;  7,2,2  illud  (sc.  Assyriorum — the 
more  remote  in  space)  primum,  hoc  {sc.  Romanum) 
ultimum  imperium;  illud ....  istud . .  . . ;  illi . .  . . ,  isti 
. .  . . ;  illam . .  . . ,  istam .... 

Alcimus  Avitus,  Contr.  Eutych.  Haeres.  i  (p.  19, 
33  Peiper)  illic . .  . . ,  hie . .  . . ;  ilUc . .  . . ,  istas .... 

Fulgentius,  De  Aetat.  Mundi  2,  p.  136 f.  illic  (more 
remote  in  time  and  interest) . . . . ,  hie  (nearer  in  time 
and  interest) . .  . . :  illic. .  . . ,  hie, . . . :  illic,  hie. . . . : 
illic. . . . ,  hie. . . .  Ille  legem  accipit,  ne  comedat  car- 
nem  in  sanguine,  iste  legem  suscipit,  quo. . .  .carne 
saturetur  et  sanguine  ((/.  p.  137  below).  Ilium...., 
istum .... 

Ambrosius,  Ex.  6,1,1  E  neque  enim  eadem  dicendi 
condicio,   quae  canendi  et  luctandi;  cum  in  illis  (the 


Iste  =  Hie.  135 

latter)  Indus  offensionis,  in  isto  lapsus  mortis  sit.  illic 
si  pecces,  spectantum  fastidium  est,  hie  damnum  est 
audientum.  In  this  type  of  sentence  there  is  no  con- 
nection of  importance  between  the  writer  and  the  ante- 
cedent of  iste,  so  that  the  correlation  under  discus- 
sion approaches  in  meaning  alterum  ..  ..alterum 

Other  examples  of  it  are:  Optatus  6,6  (p.  154,21  ff.); 
Faustus,  De  Gratia  2,3  (p.  63,11  £E.)  ilia  ("the  former") 
....  haec ....  ilia ....  ista ....  ilia ....  haec;  Ale.  Avit. 
p.  26,28  illi  (the  latter — Bonosiaci) . .  .  .isti  (the  former 
— Kntyehiani) ....  Photinus. .  .  .hie. . .  .cf.  Fulgentius, 
De  Aetat.  Mundi  8,  p.  156,18.  These  passages  show 
that  ille ....  iste ....  and  iste ....  ille ....  underwent 
the  same  course  of  development  as  hie ....  ille  dis- 
cussed above  (see  pp.  79-96).  A  particularly  clear 
example  of  iste  refering  to  an  indefinite  antecedent  is 
found  in  the  description  of  St.  Martin  exorcising  evil 
spirits,  inserted  in  Sulp.  Sev.  Dial.  2 (3), 6, 4  tum  uero 
cerneres  miseros  diuerso  exitu  perurgueri :  hos .... 
quasi  de  nube  pendere . .  . . :  at  in  parte  alia  uideres 
. . .  .uexatos  et  sua  crimina  confitentes.    nomina  etiam 

prodebant:  ille  se  louem,    iste   Mercurium    fate- 

bantur.     postremo  cunctos ....  cerneres ....  cruciari. 

It  will  be  further  observed  that  in  the  passages 
here  cited  it  seems  not  to  be  a  matter  of  importance 
whether  the  correlation  ille — iste  or  ille — hie  precedes. 
In  Oros.  2  the  former  precedes,  in  7  the  latter.  In 
Ale.  Avit.  p.  19  the  order  illic — hie  illic — istos  is 
employed,  on  page  26  the  reverse  order;  while  in 
Faustus  loc.  supra  cit.  ilia — haec  ilia — ista  ilia — haec 
occurs. 

When    the   correlation    ille — iste  occurs  unaccom- 


136  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

panied  by  a  coordinated  ille — hie,  the  order  ille — iste 
is  about  twice  as  frequent  as  iste — ille,  if  the  examples 
cited  in  this  paper  (twenty-six  of  the  former,  thirteen 
of  the  latter)  may  be  taken  as  a  fair  representation  of 
his  average  usage. 

B.  In  the  following  there  is  no  such  correlation 
with  hie — ille: 

Ale.  Avit.  Epist.  XXIX(27),  p.  59,21  (letter  of 
King  Sigismund  to  Pope  Symmachus)  istic  (here  in 
Gaul) . .  . . illic  (there  in  Italy).  The  classical  usage 
would  have  been  hie. . .  .istic  ...  So  p.  94,12  illam 
plebem  refecistis  gaudio,  istam  ditate  rescripto. 

Ennodiusp.  55,31  ille  praesto  fuit  indieibus  (locally 
more  remote)  iste  ....  ille  ....  iste  ....  Note  the 
order  ille — iste. 

Sulp.  Sev.  Dial.  1(2), 6, 7  ilia  (the  Queen  of  Sheba — 
the  more  remote  in  time) ....  ista  (the  wife  of  the  Em- 
peror Maximus,  who  served  St.  Martin). 

Filastrius  §  67,18  non  isti  (the  present  nation  of 
Jews)  sed  ue teres  et  periti  illi. 

Ale.  Avit.  Contr.  Eut.  Haer.  i(p.  21,12)  in  illo  (the 
former — the  Old  Testament) . . . . ,  in  isto  (the  New 
Test.) ....  The  two  words  are  used  in  the  same  sense 
but  in  the  chiastic  order  in  op.  cit.  p.  25,27  obeuntem 
{sc.  Christum)  ille  (the  crucified  thief)  contremuit, 
regnantem  iste  (Eutyches)  fastidit.  iste. . .  .ille.  .  . . 

Ale.  Avit.  ex  Hom.  Eib.  p.  115,8  iste  (Christus) 
. .  . . ,  ille  (diabolus) — the  nearer  and  the  more  remote 
in  interest. 

In  Sulp.  Sev.  Dial.  1,24,2  illi  refers  to  the  saints 
lauded  by  Postumianus — the  more  remote  in  the  inter- 
est and  sympathies  of  the  writer,  while  iste  refers  tO' 


Iste  =  Hie.  137 

St.  Martin,  whose  cause  Sulpicius  is  advocating.  Cic- 
ero would  certainly  have  written  here  isti. .  .  .hie. 

Ennodius  lyl  (—  Epist.  2,14,  p.  68,14)  ad  ilia  (the 
latter — temporal  honors) ....  ista  (the  latter — confes- 
sionis  praemia) .... 

In  the  following  cases  ille  and  iste  bear  the  same 
meaning  as  in  Ambrosius,  Ex.  6, 1,1  E,  etc.: 

a)  Order  iste — ille: 

Lactantius  1,11,26  sed  finxerint  ista  quae  fabulosa 
creduntur:  num  etiam  ilia  quae  de  diis  feminis  deo- 
rumque  conubiis  dicta  sunt  ?  In  this  passage  there 
is  less  disparagement  of  the  antecedent  of  iste  than  of 
the  antecedent  of  ilia.  Cf.  Hilar.  Tractat.  in  Psalm. 
2,9  <?;  Ale.  Avit.  ex  Hom.  Lib.  p.  114,3  iste  (the  lat- 
ter) ....  ille  (the  former) .  The  closer  external  resem- 
blance of  isti  to  illi  may  have  led  Fulgentius  Plancia- 
des  to  prefer  it  to  hi  in  a  passage  (Mitol.  2,70),  in 
which  he  strives  to  attain  the  greatest  possible  pho- 
netic correspondence  between  the  two  clauses:  Epi- 
curei....,  Stoici....;  isti  libidinem  colunt,  illi  libi- 
dinem  nolunt.  Cf.  De  Aetat.  Mundi  2,  cited  on  p.  134 
above. 

b)  Order  ille — iste: 

Firm.  Mat.  2,3  Osiris  iustus  {sc  fuit)  Tyfon  furio- 
sus, ;  ideo    ille  (the  former)  colitur,  iste   uitatiu". 

Ambrosius,  op.  cit.  i,8,3oF  illae  (the  former)..  .., 

istae  (the  latter) So  Augustine,  Epist.  4,2  ?«  and 

Ale.  Avit.  ex.  Hom.  Lib.  p.  145,14.  In  Ennod. 
CCCXCVII  (=  Epist.  8,20),  p.  282,30  iste  refers  to 
the  last  mentioned  antecedent,  ille  to  the  former. 

Still  more  tangible  evidence  of  the  usage  iste  = 
hie  is  found  in  the   old   Eatin   translations  of  Greek 


138  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

writings.  Of  chief  importance  are  the  Epistles  of 
Ignatius,  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  the  Novellae  of 
Justinian  and  the  Bible.  Of  these  the  second  and  the 
last  are  doubly  valuable,  because  of  the  existence  of 
at  least  two  distinct  L^atin  translations  of  portions  of 
of  each  of  them. 

In  the  Greek  text  of  the  Pastor  Hermae  forms  of 
ouTo?  occur  about  three  hundred  times.  In  about 
three-fourths  of  these  instances  both  of  our  I^atin 
translations  render  the  Greek  pronoun  by  some  form 
of  hie.  In  forty-five  instances  one  translation  has 
iste  and  the  other  hie.  In  five  instances  both  have 
iste.  Only  three  of  these  last  cases,  however,  have 
come  down  to  us  without  variae  lediones  in  the  manu- 
scripts: Visiones  3,3,2,  where  both  translations  read 
isti  and  istae,  and  Mandata  10,1,3,  where  the  Pala- 
tine has  similitudines  istas  and  the  Vulgata  quaesti- 
ones  istas.  In  the  three  other  instances  the  editio 
princeps  of  the  Vulgate  has  forms  of  hie.  Aside  from 
these  passages  iste  occurs  in  the  Vulgate  only  six 
times  as  a  translation  of  oh-zoc;, 

(cf.  the  following  page.) 


Iste  —  Hie.  139 


S2  o  o    ^  ■^■^.  'A 


•-'    ri  !=l  a    -2    ^  -^  tJ     i3  ^n  --I    (u 

a-s    Is     8    "si  s^i       1  is 


'o   '2    'a    ^  -=  h  o  e    "^                 te     '^     ti 

^?t"a  tea  -J  -"^^.N 

'P     a.     1=^    ,„  "  =     <=  a     3    -a       ^^     I-       ra      >^ 

S*"a  t^  S.c^c:-S-     = 


^  t  -      .      ^  '>>    F-     N     ? 


J     '3 
-.1;    ^  o    to    „t  -«     K-    "^  fc     5     ?     '^     5     ^  ^f. 

J  '=>  «i  >  .•  «i  r  '^  --  s>  1 1  ^-  ^  ^  =  ,^ 


,j    a      .-So     ,/    s>    3    ^    '-     =■     ^"     d    -"     -C     ^ 


3 


>->-^^>=^S-^'^'^^a5^^4 


Sags     ;g  ^  S  2  g  ^-     -^  ^-  ^  o  ji 

C  OJ  tfi  0  cu  rd 


140  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

In  the  Palatina  iste  occurs  more  frequently  (forty-two 
times  +  Sim.  9,22,3,  where  Gebhardt  and  Harnack 
print  suam  instead  of  istam). 

Next  in  chronological  order  follow  the  examples 
from  the  New  Testament.  Iste  is  frequently  used  in 
the  four  Gospels  and  almost  exclusively  to  represent 
ouToq.  In  Matthew  all  the  manuscripts  of  the  ante- 
Hieronymian  translations,  so  far  as  they  are  preserved 
to  us,  agree  in  eleven  instances  with  the  Vulgate  in 
rendering  ohroc,  by  iste.  In  other  instances  one  ren- 
ders by  iste  the  other  by  hie.  In  many  cases  both 
show  hie.  The  following  illustrations  will  give  an 
idea  of  the  relations  of  the  manuscripts  to  each 
other : 

Matth.  7,28  Toh<z  Xdyouq  toJtou?. 

uerba  haec  Vulg. 

sermones  istos  k.  The  symbols  here  used  are  those 
regularly  employed  to  designate  the  MSS  of  the  ante- 
Hieronymian  translations  of  the  New  Testament:  a  = 
Vercellensis  {saec.  IV-V),  a^  frag.  Curiensia  {saec.  V), 
c  Colbertinus  {saec.  XI),  d  Bezae  Cant.  (saec.  VI),  e 
Palatinus-Vindobonensis  1185  and  Dublinensis  {saec. 
IV-V),  f  Brixianus  {saec.  VI),  f  Corbiensis  I  {saec. 
VIII),  f  Corbiensis  II  {saec.  V-VI),  h  Vaticanus 
Claromontanus  {saec.  IV-V),  i  Vindobonensis  1235 
{saec.  VII),  k  Taurinensis,  o/im  Bobiensis  {saec.  IV-V), 
1  Reh(not  Rhe)digerianus  {saec.  VII),  q.  Monacensis 
{saec.  VII),  r  Dublinensis  Usserianus  I.  See  N.  T. 
Graeceed.  Tischendorf,  8th  edition,  Vol.  Ill,  prolego- 
mena, by  Caspar  Gregory  and  N.  T.  rec.  Wordsworth 
and  White  I,  p.  xxxi. 


Iste  =  Hie.  141 

Matth.   \%^\o  ^^loi  rijj'j  (lixpihv  TooTU)'^.     Unutii  ex  his 
pusillis  Vulg.  plerique.     istis  K,  Q,  f ,  e,  q. 

19,20   TTa'vT-a    ravra,     omnia    haec  or   haec 
omnia  Vulg.     omnia  ista  e,  q,  I. 

25.45  '^"^    rnoTwv    Twv    iXayiffrwv.      unum    de 
minoribus  his  Vulg.     istis  f ',  f '. 

25.46  iTZsksoaovrai     ouroc.     ibunt    hi    Vulg. 
isti  h. 

To  these  must  be  added  six  other  passages  in  which 
only  dreads  hie  (10,23;  12,41;  42;  13,56;  18,14;  i9> 
i),  the  hie  being  due  probably  to  a  corrector's  hand, 
lyuc.  13,16  TouTou  isto  Vulg.  caeL  c,  e,  f,  V,  i,  1, 
q,  r.  hoc  a,  a",  d. 
In  Ignatius'  letters  the  following  cases  occur: 

Kpist.  ad  Magn.  (interpolata)  3  ou  ydp  tootov\  tov 
j3Xe7:6p.evov  TrXava  tk;,  aXXa  rov  aoparov  Tzapa- 
XoyiZ^Tat,  rov  irrj  duvo/xevov  ....  non  enim 
istum  uisibilem  quis  spernit,  sed  ilium 
inuisibilem  in  eo  contemnit,  qui  non  po- 
test   

ad  Trail,  (interpol.)  ye  tuOtcdv.   istis  (=dia- 
coni). 

ad  Phil,  (interpol.)  5   ^rwir   de   xal   ixa.yoq   ouro?, 

o  . . . .  quomodo  igitur  magus  est  iste  {sc. 

Christus)    ||    Usser   and   his   predecessors 

ille  II ,  qui. 

cj.  ad  Phil,  (interpol.)  6  Ttmq.  .  .  .ourog  (9eo?  6. .  . .; 

quomodo  ....  deus   iste  1 1  Usser  and  his 
predecessors  ille  ||  qui. 

In  Justinian's  Novellae  iste  is  occasionally,  but  not 
frequently,  used  to  translate  ooroe;. 


142  The  Latin  Pro7Wuns. 

We  may  also  compare  the  Vocative  o  isti  ( =  o  uos) 
in  Arnobius  4,8/>  (p.  147,10)  {cf.  also  i,4i/>;  2,13;  36; 
4,17/))  with  Aristophanes,  Nubes  1502  ooroq,  ri  TToiur; 

Finally  Planciades  Fulgentius,  Mitol.  i,7(=  p.  21,2) 
translates  tuton  phone  by  istarum  uox.  As  his  pur- 
pose is  only  to  give  a  Latin  equivalent  of  the  Greek 
words  per  se,  without  reference  to  any  special  context, 
the  citation  gains  greatl}^  in  value. 

Similarly  the  grammarian  Dositheus,  apud  Keil 
VII, 376-436,  in  his  parallel  paradigms  of  Greek  and 
Latin  pronouns,  gives  both  hie  and  iste  as  equivalents 
for  ouruc;.     See  especially  p.  402,21  ff. 

I  am  not  aware  of  any  semasiological  changes  tm- 
dergone  by  oozoq  in  the  course  of  the  post-classical 
period,  that  could  seriously  detract  from  the  value  of 
the  citations  here  made  to  establish  the  prototritonic 
character  of  iste. 

Side  by  side   with   these  translations    stand   the 
glosses,  which  for  the  most  part  are  now  conveniently 
accessible  in   Gotz's    Corpus.     The  following  defini- 
tions are  taken  from  them: 
Vol.  II,  p.  390,32  {cod.  Laudensis)  ooroe;  hie  iste  is 


p- 

390,33  " 

ouToi.  hi  isti  ei 

p- 

457,49     " 

zouTo  id  •   hoc  istud 

p- 

452,6       " 

Taorr^  hac  istac 

p- 

92,57  {cod.  Parisin. 

is  OUTO? 

7651,    pp.    1-2 1 2)  iste 

Vol.  IV,  p.  87,13    {cod.  Vat.  3321  saec.  VII)  histic  hie 
p.  87,26       "        "       "     hicste  (for  hie  ste  = 

hie  iste)  hicine  istum 
p.  88,17    {cod.  Vat.  3321  saec.   VII)    huiusce- 

modi  huius  modi  istius  modi 


Iste  =  Hie.  143 

p.  88,18    (cod.  Vat.  3321  saec.  VII)  hunine(for 

huncine?)  istum  uero 
Vol.  V,  p.  109,23  [cod.  Par.  1298  saec.  XI)  his  •  istis 
p.  108,7       "        "        "     hec  •  ste 
p.  110,12     "        "       "     huncine  •  istum  uero 
p.  no,  13     "       "       "     huius  modi    -    istius 

modi 
p.  300,23  (Glos.    Amplonianum   II   saec.    IX) 

hie  iste 
p.  305,21  (Glos.    Amplonianum   II   saec.   IX) 

istic  hie 

The  variant  readings  h  istud  and  hoc  istud  of  C 
and  F  in  lyivy  3,52,6  doubtless  owe  their  origin  to 
glosses. 

The  last  certain  line  of  evidence  which  we  have  to 
cite  is  afforded  by  the  Romance  languages,  several  of 
which  have  preserved  modified  forms  of  iste  with  the 
meaning  "here"  and  kindred  meanings  {cf.  Korting^ 
Worterbuch,  Nos.  2770,2771,4438). 

este  Spanish,  Catalanian,  Portuguese. 

ist  Rumanian,  Old  French  (only  in  oaths). 

est  Provencal. 

ecee  +  iste  =  acest  Rumanian . 

cist  Provenyal. 

icist  Old  French. 

cet,  ce  Mod.  French. 

ecc  [um]  +  istu  [m]  =  questo  Italian. 

=  kest  Rhetian. 

=  aquest  Proven9al. 

=  aqueste  Spanish,  Portuguese. 

Italian:  costui,  costei,  costoro,  cotesti  (from  eccu 


144  ^^^^  Latin  Pronouns. 

[m]  +  ti  <  tibi  +  isti),  cotestui,  -ei.  The  last  three 
are  appHed  only  to  the  second  person  (see  p.  117 
snpra),  stamattina,  stasera,  stanotte. 

To  one  who  reflects  that  the  Romans  of  the  later 
empire  were  thoroughly  familiar  with  this  usage  of 
iste,  the  well  known  definition  of  Priscian  (Keil  III, 
142  f.)  can  offer  no  difficulties:  demonstratiua  uero  ut 
'hie',  'iste'  uel  'ille.'  sed  interest,  quod  'ille'  spatio 
longiore  intellegitur,  'iste'  uero  propinquiore,  'hie' 
autem  non  solum  de  praesente,  uerum  etiam  de  absente 
possumus  dicere,  ad  intellectum  referentes  demonstra- 
tionem.  This  shows  that  the  native  grammarians  felt 
that  hie  and  iste  had  a  very  close  resemblance  in 
meaning.  In  fact  they  so  far  confused  them,  as  actu- 
ally to  use  in  paradigms  the  forms  of  iste  instead  of 
hie  as  a  substitute  for  the  Greek  definite  article.  See 
below  p.  205,  and  cf.  Servius,  Commentum  in  Dona- 
tum  p.  4io,i6(K). 

Possibly  some  inferences  affecting  the  present  dis- 
cussion might  be  drawn  from  the  incorrect  orthogra- 
phy isthic.  Was  this  introduced  by  the  ancient  Ro- 
mans themselves  under  the  erroneous  supposition  that 
istic  was  a  compound  of  iste  and  hie?  Such  a  suppo- 
sition might  easily  be  founded  on  the  close  resemblance 
that  they  felt  to  exist  between  the  two  pronouns. 

As  for  the  geographical  extension  of  the  usage  iste 
=  hie,  we  find  it  in  Rome  and  in  other  parts  of  Italy 
(in  the  works  of  Palinus  in  Milan,  Cassiodorius,  Enno- 
dius  and  Jordanes),  -in  Sardinia  (in  those  of  Lucifer 
Caralitanus),  Sicily  (in  Firmicus  Maternus),  Africa 
(in  Cyprian,  Tertullian,  Arnobius,  Lactantius,  Ambro- 
sius,  Augustine,  Fulgentius),  Mauretania?  (in  Pompe- 


Iste  =  Hie.  145 

ius  [Mauriis]  ),  Spain  (in  Prudentius,  Orosius,  Isidore), 
Aquitania  (in  Ausonius?,  S.  Silv.  Peregr.,  Prudentius, 
Sulpicius  Severus,  Itinerarium  Burdigalense),  South- 
ern France  (in  Cassianus,  Hilarius,  Salvianus?,  Alci- 
mus  Avitus),  Dalmatia  (in  the  inscriptions:  C.  I.  Iv. 
Ill, I,  No.  2628;  Suppl.  No.  9259 — Saloni)  and  Pan- 
nonia  (inscriptions  C.  I.  L.  III.i,  3351 — Alba  Re- 
gia — ;  4185 — Savaria?).  This  general  survey  reveals 
the  inexactness  of  the  current  notion  that  the  usage 
iste  =  hie  is  peculiarly  African  Latinity.  The  fre- 
quency of  its  use  in  Africa  {cf.  Schmalz,  Lateinische 
Syntax  3d  ed.  p.  444)  is  in  my  opinion  to  be  accounted 
for  simply  by  the  close  approach  of  the  style  of  the 
African  writers  to  the  conversational  tone.  We  know 
that  their  literature  was  mainly  addressed  to  the  less 
highly  educated. 

Chronological  limits  of  the  usage.  Since  the  Ro- 
mance words  quoted  above  stand  as  living  testimony 
of  the  usage  iste  —  hie  in  the  latest  period  of  the 
I^atin  language,  it  remains  only  for  us  to  determine 
the  date  of  its  first  appearance.  Valerius  Maximus  is 
the  earliest  author  cited  in  this  chapter  as  having  the 
usage  iste  =  hie,  to  whose  writings  we  can  assign  a 
definite  date  post  quem  non.  Five  of  the  ten  instan- 
ces he  offers  us  occur  in  books  2-5,  and  as  the  pro- 
emium  of  book  6  was  written  before  the  death  of 
Julia,  they  fall  before  the  year  29  A.  D.  There  is  no 
reason  for  doubting  that  the  dates  of  the  composition 
and  publications  of  the  different  books  followed  each 
other  in  the  present  numerical  order  of  the  books. 
The  passage  9,11  was  written  immediately  after  the 
fall  of  Sejanus.     The  instances  in  books  7  and  8  would 


146  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

therefore  probably  fall  between  the  dates  29  and  31 
A.  D.  The  date  of  Celsus  is  not  definitely  known. 
If  he  was  born  about  2  A.  D.,  he  could  have  written 
the  De  Medicina  before  29  A.  D.,  in  which  case  he 
would  be  a  slightly  earlier  witness  to  the  usage  than  is 
Valerius  Maximus. 

As  the  extant  works  of  these  two  authors  were 
written  some  eighty  years  after  Caesar,  and  as  their 
rhetorical  training  was  entirely  different  from  his,  it  is 
somewhat  surprising  to  note  that  several  editors  of 
Caesar,  among  them  Dinter  (p.  127)  and  Kiibler  (p. 
142),  print  as  an  ad  literam  citation  from  Caesar's 
De  Analogia  the  words  found  in  Pompeius,  Com- 
mentum  in  Donatum  p.  144,20:  duae  sunt  Albae,  alia 
ista  quam  nouimus  in  Aricia,  et  alia  hie  in  Italia, 
uolentes  Romani  discretionem  facere,  istos  Albanos 
dixerunt,  illos  Albenses.  The  words  discretionem  and 
dixerunt  (for  nominauerunt),  as  well  as  the  position  of 
the  participle  arouse  suspicion  as  to  the  genuineness 
of  the  fragment,  but  the  introductory  words  of  Pom- 
peius, ait  sic  Caesar,  would  lead  one  to  assume,  as 
Dinter  does,  a  word  for  word  citation.  Yet  an  exam- 
ination of  Pompeius'  manner  of  introducing  his  cita- 
tions shows  us  that  we  must  not  take  his  formal  state- 
ment too  exactly.  To  illustrate,  on  p.  188,38  he  cites 
with  the  words  sic  ait  Probus'  words  that  do  not  at  all 
agree  with  the  corresponding  passage  of  Probus  (p.  82, 
16 K),  and  similarly  p.  102,9  and  165,18  he  assigns 
words  to  Terentianus  and  Donatus  which  differ  greatly 
from  the  extant  passages  of  these  authors.  The  edit- 
ors are  therefore  certainly  wrong  in  assigning  the 
words  to  Caesar,  and  the  lexicographers  Menge-Preuss, 


Iste  =  Hie.  147 

Meusel  and  Merguet  are  equall}^  in  error  for  including 
the  word  in  their  respective  lexica. 

Unfortunately  we  are  not  able  to  reach  so  definite 
a  conclusion  as  the  foregoing  in  the  case  of  a  fragment 
of  Accius'  Annals  preserved  in  Macrob.  Sat.  1,7,37 

Eumque  diem  {sc.  Saturni)  celebrant:  per  agros 

urbesque  fere  omnes 
Exercent  epulis  laeti  famulosque  procurant 
Quisque   suos;    nostris    itidemst    mos    traditus 

illinc 
Iste,  ut  cum  dominis  famuli  epulentur  ibidem. 

There  are  no  clear  indications  that  this  passage  is 
indirect  discourse.  The  general  tone  is  entirely  con- 
sistent with  a  descriptive  passage  forming  a  part  of 
Accius'  own  narrative.  Furthermore,  iste  refers  to  a 
Roman  custom  which  is  contrasted  with  a  Greek 
one  (illinc),  and  to  which  the  pronoun  hie  would  natu- 
rally be  applied.  I  would  gladly  prove  here,  were  it 
possible,  that  Accius  used  iste  in  the  present  passage 
as  a  substitute  for  hie,  that  his  readers  might  not  be 
confused  by  instinctively  feeling  hie,  so  close  after 
illinc,  as  an  adverb  and  perhaps  think  it  an  error 
for  hue. 

Two  passages  antedating  that  in  Caesar  remain  to 
be  discussed.  Both  are  inscriptions.  The  first  is 
found  in  the  C.  I.  I..,  Vol.  I,  ist.  ed.  p.  208,  No.  818. 
It  is  said  to  date  from  the  last  years  of  the  republic  or 
the  first  years  of  the  empire.  It  is  a  curse  pronounced 
upon  a  person  named  Rhodine,  and  engraved  upon  a 
lead  tablet,  which  was  thrown  upon  a  grave.  The 
expressions  that  bear  on  our  discussion  are:  quomodo 


148  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

mortuus  qui  istic  sepultus  est,  nee  loqui  nee  sermonare 
potest,  seic  Rhodine  apud  M.  Ivicinium  Faustum  mor- 

tua  sit,  nee  loqui  nee  sermonare   possit seic  R. 

accepta  sit  et  tan  turn  ualeat,  quantum  ille  mortuus  qui 
istic  sepultus  est.  All  are  familiar  with  the  usual 
forms,  hie  sepultus  est,  hie  iacet,  hie  situs  est,  etc. 
We  might  then  be  inclined  to  assume  that  iste  here 
stands  for  hie,  an  assumption  that  would  be  con- 
firmed by  the  occurrence  of  hoc  in  a  similar  dira  (C.  I. 
L,.  No.  819)  and  by  the  fact  that  in  a  corresponding 
Greek  inscription  TO  TTO I  {=toutouc)  is  used  (see  Rhein. 
Museum  IX, 367, — I^enormant).  In  addition  to  this, 
iste  also  occurs  in  a  number  of  epitaphs  of  the 
imperial  period  in  the  expressions  iste  lapis  (C.  I.  L^. 
111,3351;  2628),  titulus  iste  (¥1,17505)  and  the  like. 
We  may  further  observe,  that  the  formula  hoc  monu- 
mentum  heredem  non  sequitur,  so  often  inscribed  on 
tombs,  has  a  close  parallel  in  Martial  1,116,3-6 

Hoc  tegitur  cito  rapta  suis  Antulla  sepulcro, 
Si  cupit  hunc  aliquis,  moneo,  ne  speret  agellum: 
Perpetuo  dominis  seruiet  iste  suis. 

Yet  it  must  not  be  overlooked  that  the  document 
under  discussion,  while  a  curse,  is  yet  in  form  a  prayer 
to  some  divinity,  who  stands  to  the  speaker  in  the  re- 
lation of  second  person.  From  this  point  of  view  the 
istic  of  our  inscription  might  be  regarded  as  normal. 
Be  the  case  as  it  may  with  the  present  inscription,  iste 
never  succeeded  in  wholly  displacing  hie  in  this  form- 
ula. This  may  be  inferred,  not  only  from  the  presence 
of  the  latter  adverb  in  the  Romance  languages,  but 
also  from  the  fact  that  iste  occurs  almost  exclusively 


Iste  =  Hie,  149 

in  metrical  inscriptions,  where  its  use  may  have  been 
occasioned  by  the  exigencies  of  the  verse. 

The  other  inscription  referred  to  is  found  in  C.  I.  I,. 
I,  No.  820.  It  contains  the  phrase  IN  ITVSM  ANNUM, 
which  Gamurrini,  the  finder  of  the  inscription,  ex- 
plains as  an  error  of  the  stone-cutter  for  ISTVM.  The 
phrase  would  therefore  represent  in  hunc  annum.  If 
iste  =  hie  occurs  in  carefully  written  literature  in  or 
about  the  year  30  A.  D.,  there  is  nothing  unreason- 
able in  the  assumption  that  it  occurred  in  conversation, 
and  hence  might  occur  in  non-public  inscriptions,  fifty 
or  sixty  years  earlier.  We  cannot  accordingly  ap- 
prove of  Mommsen's  condemnation  "aus  sprachlichen 
Grunden"    of  Gamurrini' s  correction.      See  Hermes 

IV,282. 

The  length  to  which  this  usage  has  been  dwelt 
upon  in  the  present  chapter  might  leave  on  the  reader 
an  impression  that  iste  in  the  later  periods  of  Roman 
literature  had  quite  usurped  the  place  of  hie.  Here, 
however,  as  is  often  the  case  in  language  development, 
the  birth  of  the  new  does  not  imply  the  death  of  the 
old.  Although  weakened  in  meaning,  hie  maintained 
its  position;  and  even  down  to  the  eighth  century,  we 
find  it  numerically  stronger  than  iste.  That  the  re- 
verse was  true  of  the  sermo  cotidianzis  may  be  inferred 
with  some  degree  of  certainty  from  the  very  frequent 
use  of  iste  in  documents,  the  tone  of  which  approaches 
that  of  conversation.  One  striking  instance  strongly 
confirms  this  inference.  Pompeius,  the  grammarian, 
probably  a  native  of  Mauretania,  wrote  in  the  latter 
half  of  the  fifth  (?)  century  his  commentary  on  Dona- 
tus,  a  book  which  contains  numerous  reminders  of  the 


hie 

iste 

o 

24 

7 

39 

235 

I 

33 

80 

28 

192 

15 

0 

150  77/1?  Latin  Pronoims. 

conversation  in  the  school  room,  and  the  style  of  which 
undoubtedly  stands  very  near  to  that  of  the  spoken 
language.  He  alone  of  Latin  writers  reverses  the 
relative  standing  of  hie  and  iste.  On  one  hundred 
and  eight  pages  (Keil,  pp.  95-203)  the  nominative  hie 
is  not  found  at  all.  This  and  the  other  peculiarities 
in  the  use  of  these  two  pronouns  can  be  best  exhibited 
by  means  of  a  comparative  table: 

Mase.  sg.  Nom.  (hie — iste) 

Fern.  sg.  Nom.  (haee — ista)  ca. 

Neut.  sg.  Nom  and  Ace.  (hoc — istud) 

Neut.  pi.  Nom.  and  Ace.  (haee — ista) 

All  other  cases 

Adverb  (hie — istic) 

In  this  table  there  are  of  course  included  only  those 
cases  of  iste  and  hie  in  which  the  words  are  used  as 
free  elements,  i.  e.,  not  in  stereotyped  formulae,  in 
which  words  often  continue  a  formal  existence,  al- 
though really  obsolete. 

What  has  taken  place  appears  to  be  entirely  nor- 
mal. DiflFerentiation  has  led  to  the  rejection  of  hie 
substantive  and  adjective,  and  the  retention  of  its  pho- 
netic equivalent  exclusively  in  the  adverbial  function, 
while  iste  has  come  into  use  for  the  former  noun  func- 
tions of  hie.  In  the  fem.  sing,  also  ista  has  notably 
encroached  upon  haee,  (possibly  following  the  analogy 
of  the  mase.  sg.),  and  in  the  other  cases,  with  the 
exception  of  the  Nom.  and  Ace.  neut,  sg.  and  pi.,  the 
encroachment  is  still  greater.  The  plural  haee,  which 
in  all  periods  was  used  very  largely,  has  made  a  much 
stronger  resistenee,  while  hoc  (Nom.    and  Ace.)  has 


hie  =  Hie.  i^i 

kept  the  field  to  itself.  The  only  instance  of  the  neu- 
ter (it  is  not  spelled  istum,  but  istud,  after  the  anal- 
ogy of  illud)  is  found  on  page  185,  line  28.  This  last 
result  is  just  what  we  should  have  expected,  for  even 
in  Cicero  the  forms  hoc  and  haec  as  substantives  exceed 
in  number  all  other  cases  combined.  That  the  phe- 
nomena exhibited  in  the  above  table  are  no  passing 
phase  nor  a  peculiarity  of  a  particular  writer,  is  shown 
by  the  evidence  of  the  Romance  languages,  in  which 
the  forms  hoc  and  hie  (Adverb)  always  remained  in 
use,  as  'the  Italian  words  qui,  "here",  and  cio,  "it", 
from  eccum-f-hic  and  ecce+hoc  respectively,  amply 
testify.  It  is  true  that  modern  Italian  also  possesses 
questo,  which,  although  grammatically  masculine,  is 
applied  to  neuter  objects.  It  must  have  come  into 
use  after  hoc  and  ecce+hoc  lost  the  character  of  a 
TzpioTorpiTov.  The  same  rejection  of  istud[c]  in  favor 
of  hoc,  attended  by  a  decided  preference  for  Nom. 
iste  over  Nom.  hie  is  found  in  the  A  and  B  classes  of 
Scholia  Terentiana  published  by  Schlee,  particularly 
in  the  "explanationes  praeambulas"  to  each  scene, 
Istud,  p.  102,23,  is  perhaps  due  to  the  source  from 
which  the  compiler  drew  his  scholia,  just  as  istuc, 
p.  160,22,  is  due  to  the  influence  of  Terence.  The 
form  ista  for  haec  frequently  occurs,  just  as  in  Pom- 
peius. 

In  the  preceding  discussion  there  have  been  cited 
in  the  main  only  passages  in  which  iste  occurs  outside 
of  direct  discourse,  yet  from  those  authors  who  wrote 
later  than  Suetonius  occasional  passages  have  been 
cited  of  the  opposite  character.  In  justification  of  this 
it  may  be  said,  that,  although  the  occurrence  of  iste 


152  The  Latin  Pronoufis. 

outside  of  direct  address  is  evidence  that  it  does  not 
serve  as  ^zoTzpozpno^j^  the  converse  is  not  true.  Indis- 
putable instances  of  iste  =  hie  in  direct  discourse  are 
cited  from  Lucan  on  p.  123  above.  There  are  two 
cases  of  iste  in  Cicero's  dialogue  De  Senectute  which 
seem  to  me  to  bear  no  reference  to  the  second  person. 
In  section  29  etsi  ipsa  ista  defectio  uirium  (the  words 
of  Cato)  the  words  defectio  uirium  contain  a  sentiment 
which  is  in  no  sense  to  be  connected  with  Scipio  or 
Laelius,  to  whom  Cato  directs  his  remarks,  since  in 
sect.  15  the  idea  is  distinctly  attributed  to  some  third 
parties,  vaguely  suggested  by  the  subjunctive  uidea- 
tur.  These  same  indefinite  persons  are  likewise  con- 
ceived as  the  authors  of  the  cibi  et  potionis  auiditas 
implied  in  ista  in  section  46.  It  is  true,  that  they  are 
the  advocates  of  ideas  and  arguments  combated  by 
Cato,  and  hence  they  are,  in  a  certain  sense,  in  the 
position  of  opponents  to  him.  Nevertheless  it  is  only 
Scipio  and  I^aelius  who,  strictly  speaking,  can  be  re- 
garded as  standing  to  Cato  in  the  relation  of  persons 
addressed;  for,  although  the  Aristotelian  dialogue 
gives  the  two  collocutors  but  little  opportunity  to 
speak,  Cicero  never  for  a  moment  allows  his  reader 
to  lose  sight  of  the  conversational  character  of  the 
composition  {cf.  De  Amicitia  4  ipse  mea  legens  sic 
afl&cior  interdum,  ut  Catonem,  non  me,  loqui  existi- 
mem).  It  would  not  be  difficult  to  find  other  instances 
of  this  class  in  Cicero's  dialogues.  We  can  see  no 
reference  to  the  second  person  in  Terence  And.  215 

Ad   haec   mala  hoc   mihi    accidit   etiam:    haec 
Andria, 


Iste  —  Hie.  153 

Si  ista  uxor  siue  amicast,  grauida  e  Pamphilost; 
Haul.  530  Istunc  seruolum 

Dico  adiilescentis; 
Eun.  823,4  Iste  Chaerea. 

QuiChaerea?    Iste  ephebus  frater  Phaedriae; 

nor  in  Plaut.  Curculio  465,  where  there  is  no  good 
reason  for  associating  the  sychophant  with  the  audi- 
ence, whom  the  choragus  is  addressing.  This  is  also 
true  of  iste  in  True.  340;  349;  Aul.  702;  Pseud.  1053; 
Mil.  128  and  other  passages.  In  these  cases,  there  is 
usually  some  degree  of  contempt  implied  either  in  iste 
or  in  the  context.  We  should  hesitate,  nevertheless, 
to  affirm,  that  in  all  the  cases  cited  iste  approaches  hie 
in  meaning.  Some  of  these  passages,  with  over  fifty 
others,  are  mentioned  or  discussed  by  Bach,  op.  cit.  pp. 
257-226.  It  must  be  admitted  that  Bach's  explana- 
tions are  often  ingenious,  but  he  deduces  little  positive 
evidence  to  prove  his  points.  He  shows  how  iste  may 
in  each  case  be  interpreted  as  a  deureporptrov^  but  not 
that  it  must  be  interpreted  as  such.  In  the  absence 
of  more  conclusive  proofs  the  matter  must  remain 
uncertain. 

As  iste  is  a  very  strong  demonstrative,  it  usually 
refers  to  or  modifies  words  upon  which  for  some  rea- 
son especial  stress  is  laid.  It  is  therefore  not  surpris- 
ing to  find  it  normally  refering,  particularly  in  the 
"Silver"  I^atinity,  to  the  main  object  under  discussion. 
By  no  writer  is  it  more  frequently  so  used  than  by 
Aulus  Gellius,  who  is  especially  important  to  us  for 
the  light  he  throws  upon  the  meaning  of  the  word  {cf. 
also  Gains  1,50). 

We  now  approach  the  most  interesting  and  most 


154  "^^^^  Latiji  Pronotins. 

important,  though  at  the  same  time  the  most  difficult, 
and  in  a  sense  the  most  unsatisfactory  section  in  the 
discussion  of  this  pronoun,  namely,  that  which  treats 
of  the  semasiological  nature  of  the  change  iste  >  hie. 

The  difficulties  that  face  us  here  arise  partly  from 
the  non-existence  in  the  present  case  of  several  lines 
of  evidence  which  are  usually  of  the  greatest  assist- 
ance in  tracing  changes  of  meaning.  First  and  fore- 
most, we  do  not  know  the  etymology  of  the  word  with 
sufficient  certainty  to  base  an  argument  upon  it. 
Secondly,  we  possess  no  exact  definitions  of  the  word 
by  the  earlier  Romans.  Furthermore,  we  can  receive 
but  little  light  from  the  analogous  pronouns  in  other 
languages.  The  suggestion  that  ovto<;  contains  in 
its  second  syllable  the  same  element  that  forms  the 
second  syllable  of  iste,  is  debatable;  and  even  if  iste  is 
identical  with  Umbrian  estu, — which  is  highly  proba- 
ble, if  not  certain, — the  scanty  remains  of  the  Umbrian 
dialect  do  not  supply  us  with  enough  data  to  deter- 
mine the  exact  meaning  of  the  Umbrian  word.  We 
cannot  therefore  be  certain  whether  the  classical  mean- 
ing of  iste  is  a  primary  or  a  secondary  meaning;  and 
if  secondary,  we  cannot  know  how  far  it  stands  re- 
moved from  the  primary.  Under  these  circumstances 
we  can  scarcely  attempt  more  than  to  suggest  what 
seems  to  be  a  plausible  explanation  of  the  nature  of 
the  change  from  the  classical  meaning  to  the  later  one. 
Even  this  may  seem  overbold. 

Since  the  classical  writers  use  the  word  almost 
■exclusively  as  a  dsuTepdrpirow^  we  will  suppose  that  its 
use  as  a  demonstrative  of  the  first  person  is  developed 
.out  of  its  classical  usage,  and  is  not  concentric  with  it. 


Iste  —  Hie.  155 

The  relation  of  the  antecedent  of  iste  to  the  second 
person  may  vary  greatly  in  character  and  degree  of 
intimacy.  It  may  be  either  very  close  or  very  loose. 
It  may,  for  example,  be  one  of  ownership  or  of  posses- 
sion or  of  mere  proximity.  It  may  be  simply  one  of 
interestedness,  more  or  less  keen,  or  of  mere  attention. 
Furthermore  this  relation  may  have  no  existence  out- 
side of  the  mind  of  the  speaker.  Such  an  object  has 
in  almost  every  instance  a  more  or  less  intimate  local 
relation  with  the  first  person  also.  This  springs  from 
the  circumstance  that,  iste  being  confined  for  the  most 
part  to  conversational  use,  the  persons  communicating 
are  usually  in  each  other's  presence.  Since  moreover 
the  object  is  the  mutual  object  of  conversation,  it 
occupies  also  a  large  place  in  the  speaker's  interest; 
and  this  interest  is  the  more  likely  to  be  very  keen, 
because,  as  stated  above,  the  strong  demonstrative 
force  of  iste  leads,  for  the  most  part,  to  its  use  in 
refering  to  antecedents  upon  which  particular  stress  is 
laid,  (seep.  153).  Hor.  Epist.  1,6,67  and  Sat.  1,4,13 
cited  above  seem  to  me  to  exemplify  this  usage,  and  to 
them  we  may  perhaps  add  Cic.  Ad  Fam.  2,7,4  cum  te 
tribunum  plebis  isto  anno  fore  non  putarem. 

By  a  very  slight  change  (unconscious,  of  course)  in 
the  attitude  of  the  speaker,  iste  may  be  employed  not 
to  refer  to  something  actually  related  to  the  second 
person,  but  to  bring  some  object  into  relation  to  the 
second  person.  This  use  of  iste  awakenes  in  the  per- 
son addressed  an  interest  in  the  object.  This  change 
could  arise  from  a  slight  anticipation  on  the  part  of 
the  speaker.  He  has  before  his  mind  an  object,  in 
which  he  desires  to  interest  another,  and  conceives  as 


156  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

already  accomplished  the  effect  which  in  reality  will 
immediately  follow  his  mention  of  that  object.  Noth- 
ing is  more  common  than  such  an  attribution  of  our 
own  feelings  and  sentiments  to  others.  In  this  case 
the  interest  of  the  speaker  in  the  object  is  at  least  as 
great  as  that  of  the  person  addressed,  and  iste  in  this 
way  gradually  loses  its  character  as  dsoTsporpirov.,  and 
comes  to  mean  approximately  "ecce  hie."  If  this 
explanation  is  true,  we  may  also  add  that  the  fre- 
quency with  which  secondary  subordinate  ideas  were 
associated  with  iste  facilitated  this  change. 

But  there  is  another  point  of  view,  from  which  we 
may  regard  this  change,  and  by  which  an  explana- 
tion of  the  meaning  of  iste  is  offered  that  often  appeals 
to  me  more  strongly  than  the  foregoing.  Let  us 
assume  for  iste  the  etymology  of  Schweizer-Sidler 
(see  above,  p.  112),  which  involves  the  further 
assumption  of  a  very  strong  meaning  for  iste.  Let 
us  also  bring  the  meaning  of  iste  into  connection  with 
that  of  oI)TO(;  and  oumtrc,  with  which  it  will  probably 
also  contain  common  etymological  elements.  In  this 
way  we  shall  be  led  to  posit  for  iste,  in  the  classical 
period,  a  very  strong  deictic  force.  Its  function  will 
then  be,  to  direct  sharply  and  pointedly  the  attention 
of  the  person  addressed  to  some  object,  upon  which 
the  speaker's  mind  dwells  with  keen  interest,  and 
either  to  communicate  to  the  second  person  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  existence  of  this  interest  or  to  awaken  in 
him  a  similar  interest.  If  we  were  to  seek  for  a  par- 
allel in  a  modern  language,  we  should  find  the  German 
locutions  dies  da  and  das  da  to  correspond  roughly  to 
iste,  although  with  considerably  weaker  deictic  force. 


Iste  —  Hie.  157 

On  the  assumption  of  this  etymology  and  meaning  for 
iste,  it  is  not  difficult  to  explain  the  classical  and  post 
classical  usages. 

In  the  first  place  we  shall  not  be  constrained  to 
assume  a  necessary  association  of  iste  with  the  person 
addressed;  nor  shall  we  be  forced,  in  consequence  of 
this,  to  distort  and  misinterpret  such  passages  as  those 
from  Cicero's  De  Senectute  cited  above  (p.  152). 
Delicate  "Nuancen"  of  meaning  no  longer  need  to  be 
called  in  to  eliminate  such  examples  of  iste  as  seem  to 
disprove  its  universal  character  as  (^eurspoTpizov. 

Furthermore  a  keen  interest  of  the  subject'  in  the 
object  (the  antecedent  of  iste)  implies  that  the  sub- 
ject has  determined,  or  is  in  the  process  of  determin- 
ing, the  relation  of  that  object  to  itself,  /.  e.,  to  its 
life  process.  It  follows  as  a  corollary  to  this,  that  iste 
with  its  context  asserts  (directly  or  by  connotation)  a 
predicate  of  the  object.  This  predicate  varies  with 
the  varying  relation  of  object  to  subject.  It  may  be 
disparagement  or  commendation,  contempt  or  praise, 
etc. ,  etc. ,  or  wonder,  arising  from  an  undetermined  atti- 
tude. The  great  numerical  excess  in  classical  prose 
of  instances  in  which  iste  implies  contempt,  is  easily 
accounted  for.  The  only  forms  of  literature  extant  in 
this  period,  in  which  it  is  frequently  used,  are  orations 
and  philosophical  dialogues,  in  which  iste,  refering 
usually  to  something  connected  with  the  person  ad- 
dressed, is,  of  course,  used  of  an  antecedent  held  in 
contempt,  scorn,  disparagement,  etc. 

Again,  on   this   hypothesis  we   can  easily  account 

'The  word  "subject"  here  means  the  person  from  whom 
the  thought  procedes. 


158  The  Latm  Pronouns. 

for  the  extensive  use  of  iste  as  deuTsporpcTov.  Iste  as  a 
strong  deictic  pronoun  can  be  used  only  in  cases  of 
direct  address,  when  the  speaker  and  the  Hstener  stand 
face  to  face.  Hie  is  still  a  strong  demonstrative,  and 
sometimes  is  itself  used  with  deictic  force  (cf.  Cic.  De 

Sen.  4  saepe admirari  soleo  cum  hoc  C.  Laelio). 

The  same  is  true  of  ille.  But  ille  is  a  remote  demon- 
strative and  hie  a  near  demonstrative,  while  iste  (as 
deictic  pronoun)  is  neither.'  Accordingly  hie  and  ille, 
so  long  as  they  retained  their  respective  forces  un- 
weakened,  sufficed  to  designate  objects  either  near  to 
or  remote  from  the  speaker,  while  iste  tended  to  asso- 
ciate itself  with  objects  that  fell  under  neither  of  these 
two  categories;  and,  chiefly  in  the  language  of  the 
orators  and  of  the  disputants  in  sharply  conducted 
dialogues  of  an  argumentative  character,  it  proved 
itself  highly  valuable  as  an  instrument  for  expressing 
the  contempt  of  the  speaker  for  all  that  was  associated 
with  his  opponent.  I  am  not  inchned  to  think  that  in 
conversation  iste  was  apphed  as  exclusively  to  the 
second  person  as  it  is  in  our  extant  literature  of  the 
"Golden"  age.  In  fact,  I  have  no  doubt,  that  could 
we  enjoy  the  boon  of  listening  for  a  day  to  the  con- 
versation of  an  ancient  Roman  family  in  their  every- 
day life,  our  notions  respecting  the  restriction  of  the 
application  of  this  word  to  contexts  in  which  it  con- 
notes contempt  or  refers  to  the  second  person,  would 
undergo  remarkable  changes. 

Lastly,  on  this  hypothesis  the  development  of  iste 
into  a  -piurdrpiTov  is  simply  explained.     When  hie  lost 

^  See,  however,  the  limitation  of  this  statement  toward  the 
end  of  the  following  paragraph. 


Iste  =  Ilk  or  Is.  159 

it  protritonic  force,  just  as  in  English  the  word  "this" 
is  losing  its  reference  to  the  first  person,  the  Romans 
unconsciously  began  to  employ  new  means  for  point- 
ing out  the  nearness  of  objects  to  the  speaker,  just  as 
I  felt  it  desirable  to  write  on  page  v  above  the  words 
"the  present  work"  instead  of  "this  work",  which 
would  mean  id  opus  or  is  liber,  no{:  hoc  opus  or  hie 
liber.  Two  of  these  new  means  maintained  them- 
selves many  centuries  side  by  side;  namely,  ecce  hie, 
ecce  haec,  etc.,  and  iste  (later  ecce  iste  or  eccum  istum; 
see  below  p.  214  f.  For  the  relation  between  them  see 
below  p.  205.  The  pronoun  iste  with  its  strong  deictic 
force,  being  used  in  cases  of  direct  address,  was  applied 
to  objects  which,  like  those  referred  to  by  the  German 
da,  were  in  plain  sight  or  in  the  presence  of  the 
speaker.  It  was  therefore  used  for  the  most  part  of 
objects  that  would  have  been  referred  to  by  hie,  had 
this  last  still  retained  its  stronger  demonstrative  force; 
and  so  naturally  fell  into  the  place  of  hie,  just  as  ille 
naturally  succeeded  to  is  (see  below,  p.  194). 

B.      ISTK  AS   A   SUBSTITUTE   FOR   IIvLK  AND   IS   AND 
FOR    THE    DEFINITE   ARTICIvE. 

During  the  period  of  the  "Silver"  Latinity,  the 
pronoun  iste  is  occasionally  found  referring  to  objects 
remote  from  the  speaker  and  from  the  person  ad- 
dressed. As  has  been  suggested  above,  the  strict 
usage  of  iste  as  a  osureporptrov  by  no  means  precludes 
its  use  to  designate  such  objects,  and  this  usage  must 
have  increased  in  range  when  iste  began  to  lose  its 
deictic  character,  or  when  it  connoted  a  strongly  char- 
acterised  predicate,    such    as   the   idea   of   contempt. 


i6o  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

When  the  word  began  to  lose  the  character  of  a  pro- 
noun of  the  second  person,  the  use  referred  to  became 
still  more  natural.  Many  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
explaining  the  usage  are  done  away  with,  when  we 
assume  that  the  classical  meaning  of  iste  is  not  its 
original  one.  Down  to  at  least  as  late  as  the  second 
century  of  our  era,  the  word  retained  a  strong  demon- 
strative force  and  was  used,  as  suggested  above,  in  call- 
ing attention  to  objects  in  which  for  some  reason  much 
interest  centered.  As  it  came  in  this  way  to  connote 
a  predicate,  the  particular  character  of  which  depended 
upon  the  context  and  varied  with  the  attitude  of  the 
subject  toward  the  antecedent  of  iste,  it  was  not  infre- 
quently used  in  the  sense  of  talis.  So  closely  did  it 
approach  this  word  in  meaning,  that  we  find  it  prepar- 
ing the  way  for  a  following  result  clause  (like  is — see 
p.  3  supra — and  hie);  while  Aulus  Gellius  (19,1,18) 
goes  so  far  as  actually  to  translate  rd?  Toiaura^  (pavrafria'Z 
by  uisa  istaec  (observe  the  deitic  -ce  appended). 
While  this  implication  of  a  predicate  greatly  facilitated 
the  application  of  iste  to  objects  remote  from  the  sub- 
ject and  the  person  addressed,  it  at  the  same  time 
sharply  distinguishes  iste  from  ille,  which  only  ex- 
ceptionally connotes  such  a  predicate.  It  is  therefore 
inaccurate  to  identify  iste  in  meaning  with  ille. 

The  first  century  A.  D.  marks  the  most  radical  and 
rapid  changes  in  the  meaning  of  iste,  and  it  is  to 
the  literature  of  this  period,  especially  to  Seneca  the 
Younger  and  the  poets,  as  also  to  Aulus  Gellius,  that 
we  must  primarily  look  for  the  evidence  on  the  sub- 
ject. Pending  my  further  study  of  the  subject  I  may 
refer  to  the  scattered  remarks  to  be  found  in  the  fol- 


Me  =  Ille  or  Is.  i6i 

lowing  books:  Goelzer,  op.  cit.  p.  89;  Ebert  in  the  Acta 
Sem.  Erlangensis  11,327;  Obermeier,  op.  cit.  p.  16; 
Rauschning,  De  Eatinitate  I/.  Ann.  Sen.  Phil.  p.  70. 
As  a  consequence  of  the  frequent  use  of  iste  as  a 
substitute  for  hie,  it  followed  the  same  path  of  deteri- 
oration in  meaning  with  that  pronoun,  and  sank  to 
the  mere  function  of  a  determinative  (this  does  not 
imply,  of  course,  that  it  did  not  retain  also  in  some 
connections  a  strong  demonstrative  force  until  late  in 
the  history  of  the  language — cf.  the  strong  demonstra- 
tive force  retained  by  is;  see  supra  pp.  3f).  A  close 
approach  to  such  a  usage  is  found  in  Celsus  8,i2(=  p. 
354,16),  cited  S7(pra,  p.  iig.  Such  passages  are  fre- 
quent from  Celsus  on.  In  fact  the  word  so  far  deteri- 
orated that  in  the  later  periods,  as  will  be  pointed  out 
in  the  last  chapter,  it  was  used  as  a  substitute  for  the 
definite  article.  See  p.  205  for  further  remarks  on  the 
subject. 


33 


CHAPTER  IV.     IPSE. 


CHAPTER  IV.     IPSE. 

For  the  classical  usage  of  the  intensive  pronoun, 
I  may  refer  to  the  excellent  discussion  of  Niigels- 
bach-Miiller,  Lateinische  Stilistic  §  91.  The  main 
features  of  the  classical  meaning  and  construction  are 
preserved  at  least  as  late  as  the  seventh  century  of  our 
era.  At  the  same  time  there  were  developed  certain 
usages  quite  distinct  from  these.  The  later  meanings 
of  the  pronoun  may  be  roughly  indicated  by  the  equa- 
tions: ipse  =  idem,  ipse  =  ille  or  is,  ipse  =  Definite 
Article. 

A.      IPSE  =  IDEM. 

The  narrow  limit  which  defines  the  spheres  of  the 
ideas  represented  by  these  two  adjectives,  is  exempli- 
fied in  the  following  early  English  citations: 

Till  she  was  slayn  right  in  the  selve  place. 

— Chaucer,  Frankl.  Tale  i6i7o(=  11706T). 
Than  hit  semet,  for-sothe,  that  the  selfe  woman 
Wold  haue  faryn  hym  fro. 

—Destruction  of  Troy  13828  (K.  E.  T.  S.) 
To  shoot  another  arrow  that  self  way 
Which  you  did  shoot  the  first. 

— Shakespeare,  Merch.  of  Venice,  1,1,148. 

In  Enghsh  we  say,  "the  same  object,"  "the  very 
object,"  "the  self-same  object,"  "the  very  self-same 
object."     In  the  I^atin  language  also  these  two  words 


1 66  The  Latin  Pro?ioims. 

approach  each  other  very  closely  in  certain  construc- 
tions, even  in  the  classical  period.  A  remarkably 
instructive  parallel  may  be  drawn  between  the  two 
passages: 

Knn.  Ann.  8  (M)  terra-  Cic.  De  Sen.  72  sic 
que  corpus  quae  dedit  hominem  eadem  op  time, 
ipsa  capit.  quae  conglutinauit,  natura 

dissoluit. 
In  the  immediatelj'  preceding  lines  Cicero  had  said, 
opus  ipsa  suum  eadem,  quae  coagmentauit,  natura 
dissoluit.  Ennius  means,  "that  very  (same)  terra"; 
there  is  here  no  contrast  between  terra  and  something 
else;  we  have  rather  the  statement,  that  two  acts  pro- 
cede  from  one  and  the  same  agent.  "It  is  the  earth 
that  both  builds  up  and  destroys  the  human  body." 
Compare  the  conditions  presented  in  this  sentence  with 
Kiihner,  Ausfiihrl.  Gramm.  11,457  "Das  Demonstra- 
tiv  idem....wird  oft  gebraucht,  wenn  einem  und 
demselben  Gegenstande,  von  dem  schon  eine  Bestim- 
mung  ausgesagt  ist,  eine  andere  neue  Bestimmung  er- 
theilt  wird."  It  is  true  that  the  relative  clause  con- 
tributes here  in  no  small  degree  to  the  expression  of 
the  conception  of  identity;  yet  it  is  equall}'  true  that 
the  relative  clause  receives  no  slight  support  from  ipse. 
The  difference  between  the  function  of  the  relative 
clause  here  and  in  such  a  sentence  as  legionarii  per 
nonnullas  horasuim  hostium  soh  sustinuerunt;  tandem 
aduenit  ipse  imperator,  qui  sese  adhuc  in  tabernaculo 
continuerat,  is  that  in  the  latter  instance,  it  adds  a 
new  predicate  to  a  grammatical  subject  already  clearly 
characterised  or  described;  in  the  former  case,  the 
clause  adds  a  predicate  that  is  essential  to  the  under- 


Ipse  =  Idem.  167 

standing  of  the  antecedent.  Sentences  of  this  type 
are  not  common  in  classical  Latin.  One  example  is 
found  in  the  Lex  Quinctia  de  Aqueductibus  quoted  by 
Frontinus  (printed  in  Bruns'  Fontes  luris  Romani 
Antiqui,  6th  edition,  p.  114,47)  ipsorum  qui  permisis- 
sent  curatorum  nomina  {cf.  the  passage  above  from 
Ennius)  means  "the  very  ones,"  i.  e.,  "the  same  ones 
who  had  granted  permission' ' .  This  law  dates  from 
9  B.  C.  During  the  second  century,  however,  the 
usage  is  more  frequent  and  from  Tertullian  on  occur 
numerous  instances  of  the  construction  ipse  qui  —  idem 
qui.  The  relative  clause  sometimes  precedes,  but  it 
more  often  follows  ipse.  In  addition  to  the  passages 
cited  under  sect,  i,  we  may  quote  De  Pudicit.  13  (p. 
246,1)  ipsam  substantiam  damnans,  per  quam  excide- 
rat;  cf.  De  Resurr.  Carn.  i  ipsos. . .  .exurit,  quos. . . . 
nutrit  iisdem  ignibus  et  promerens;  Serv.  ad  Geor. 
1,39  Proserpina  ipsa  est  quae  et  Luna;  S.  Siluiae  Pere- 
grinatio  4,5  (p.  42,7)  montes  ipsos,  quos  ingressi 
fueramus  pridie  sera;  sed  non  ipsa  parte  exire  habe- 
bamus,  qua  intraueramus,  et  al.;  Cassian.  Conl.  18,16, 

8  ipsa lues  est,  de  qua dicitur  per  prophetam; 

Salvianus,  De  Gub.  Dei  4,11  ipsi  in  nobis  mores  sunt, 
qui  in  seruolis  nostris;  so  also  5,6;  Kpist.  9,18;  19;  all 
of  which  passages  are  to  be  found  cited  in  Pauli's 
index.  In  Salvian.  Ad  Eccl.  2,8  with  licet  ipsum 
accipiat  the  words  quod  alius  accipit  must  be  supplied. 
In  the  index  to  Petschenig's  edition  of  the  Passio  VII 
Monachorum  is  cited  sect.  12  ijierba  infanhdi  cuiiis- 
dam)  cum  ipsis  sum  in  timore  Dei  conuersatus,  cum 
ipsis  desidero  passionem  suscipere,  cum  quibus  credo 
me   et    futuram  gloriam   inuenire;  and    Helm   in  his 


1 68  The  Latin  Pronotins. 

index  to  Plane.  Fulg.  eites  Mitol.  2,pr,65(M)  ipsum 
{sc.  Deum)  proferat  qui  ista  eontribuit.  In  this  in- 
stance the  use  of  ipse  may,  however,  be  justified  by 
the  character  of  its  antecedent.  From  the  last  half  of 
the  sixth  century  (570)  we  read  in  Antonin.  Plac.  15 
(p.  170,1)  Stat  in  ipso  statu  in  quo  fuit. 

At  least  four  passages  may  be  cited  in  which  the 
relative  clause  precedes  ipse.  They  are,  besides  Tert. 
De  Spectac.  21,  Commodian,  Apol.  322. 

Per   quod   prius   hominem    prostrauerat   morti 

malign  us, 
Ex  ipso  deuictus; 

Schol.  Gronov.  ad  Cic.   Rose.  Amer.   117  apud  quem 

praemium ipsum  potuisse   occidere  Roscium 

(cited  by  I^andgraf  ad loc.)  cf.  Greek  r.ap  m..  .  .aurov; 
Augustine,  De  Civ.  Dei  5,21  qui  Mario  {^sc.  regnum 
dedit) ,  ipse  Gaio  Caesari 

I^astly  under  this  head  we  may  refer  to  Symma- 
chus,  Epist.  (p.  267,12),  although  this  passage  is  sus- 
ceptible of  a  different  interpretation  (ipsorum  =  ? 
eorum) . 

Among  the  pagans  Macrobius  also  shows  the  usage 
{cf.  Somn.  Scip.  1,10,9  ipsa  corpora,  quibus). 

Of  more  frequent  occurrence  than  either  of  these 
constructions  are  the  collocations  is  ipse,  hie  ipse,  ille 
ipse,  iste  ipse,  expressing  identity,  all  of  which  are 
known  to  Plautus  and  Terence,  and  are  found  in  all 
periods  of  the  Latin  language.  (See  Niemoller,  De 
pron.  ipse  et  idem  apud  Plant,  et  Ter.,  Halle,  1887,  p. 
31  f.)  Clear  examples  are:  Cic.  Eael.  16  id  ipsum 
cum  tecum    agere   conarer,  Fannius   anteuertit.  Phil. 


Ipse  =  Idem.  169 

2,74  quin  his  ||  "iis  malim" — Orelli  ||  ipsis  temporibus 
domi  Caesaris  percussor  ab  isto  missus  ||  inmissus 
Wolfflin  II  deprehensus  dicebatur,  "at  the  same  time"; 
Lucr.  1,433 

Nam  quodcumque  erit,  esse  aliquid  debebit  id 
ipsum; 

Caesar,  Bell.  Gall.  6,37,1  hoc  ipso  tempore  et  casii; 
Bell.  Alex.  52  eoque  ipso  die;  Veil.  Pat.  2,125,4  "^  id 

ipsum incendium;  for  Tacitus  see  Ger.  und  Gr.  p. 

693,  col.  i;  Florus  1,8(13), 19  iHam  ipsam;  Hilarius 
Pict.  Tract,  in  Psalm.  ii8Iod,6  eo  ipso  in  tempore. 
Of  these  phrases  the  neuter  singular  id  ipsum  gained 
the  greatest  currency.  At  a  later  period  it  was  often 
used  as  a  translation  of  to  aurw,  e.  g.,  i  Cor.  1,10 
-KapaxaXS)  8k  oiiaq ....  Iva  to  auru  A^^tjts  ndvT£<;  obsecro 
....  uos ....  ut ....  id  ipsum  dicatis  omnes  (new  ver- 
sion "that  ye  all  speak  the  same  thing").  In  Matth. 
5,47  Tu  atno  —  id  ipsum,  whereas  in  46  rt)  amo  is  ren- 
dered sic.  The  above  L,atin  translations  are  taken 
from  the  ante-Hieronymian  texts.  The  Vulgate  reads 
hoc  in  both  the  passages  from  Matthew.  Other  New 
Testament  examples  are  to  be  found  in  Ronsch,  Itala 
mid  Vulgata  pp.  424  f.  This  mode  of  translation  is 
not  confined  to  the  New  Testament,  being  found  also 
in  Ignatius,  Kpist.  ad  Philad.  (interpol.)  10  in  id 
ipsum  {^Tt\  TO  auTo);  SO  also  Sec.  6;  Ad  Philip,  i;  Ad 
Magn.  7  (interpol.).  It  found  a  rival  in  hoc  ipsum, 
which  occurs  in  Ignatius,  Epist.  Ad  Smyrn.  (inter- 
pol.) 5;  Ad  Trallianos  (interpol.)  9,  where  tuutov  is 
rendered  by  hoc  ipsum.  In  Ad  Philip,  i  in  hoc  ipso 
canone  represents  ^v  rc3  auTw  xavovt.  In  the  Authenti- 
cum  of  Justinian,  Novel.  22,11;  22,29/r.  rod  aurou  and 


24 


170 


The  Latin  Pronouns. 


ravTd  are  represented  by  hoc  ipso  and  hoc  ipsum.  The 
usage  was  doubtless  encouraged  by  the  Greek  collo- 
cation ab-b  TouTo  {cf.  Novell.  22,14  hoc  ipsum;  Z^pr., 
2  de  hoc  ipso;  et  al.')  and  rauTo  rouzo  {pp.  cit.  22, 
47,2;  in  22,30,  however,  rahroo  toOtou  is  correctly 
rendered  by  hoc  idem) .  The  Greek  phrase  rd  iv  was 
frequently  used  as  synonymous  with  rd  ahro  in  such 
passages  as  Ignatius,  Epist.  ad  Philip.  2,2,  where 
TO  Iv  (fpovovvrei;  is  rendered  by  unum  sentientes  (with 
TO  £v  expressing  identity  compare  the  lyatin  expressions 
unum  atque  idem,  unum  idemque,  in  use  from  Cicero 
on — cf.  Lael.  92 — and  especially  common  after  Sue- 
tonius and  Apuleius) .  Even  as  early  as  the  time  of 
Aulius  Gellius  id  ipsum  had  come  to  be  so  completely 
identified  in  meaning  with  idem,  that  it  was  able  to 
take  the  place  of  idem  in  a  phrase  so  widely  used  and 
hence  so  stereotyped  as  unum  atque  idem.  (See  Aul. 
Gell.  6 (7), 2 1, 2  unum  atque  id  ipsum  tamen  in  utro- 
que  uerbo  ostenditur.)  This  usage  is  paralleled  by  the 
Greek  h  xa\  rd  abro^  which  occurs  at  least  as  early  as 
Aristotle  (see  Bonitz,  Index  Aristot.)  It  would  be 
equally  justifiable  to  assume,  that  the  Greek  6  abro^  was 
the  main  influence  that  led  to  the  origin  of  the  usage. 
The  thoroughgoing  adoption  of  this  word  by  nearly 
all,  if  not  by  all  the  Latin  writers,  precludes  us  from 
assuming  that  o'  ahxot;  had  any  greater  influence  than 
that  of  encouraging  the  usage.  That  ^  abro^  did  exer- 
cise a  strong  influence  in  this  latter  direction,  par- 
ticularly on  the  Patristic  literature,  cannot  be  doubted. 
We  have  noted  the  phrase  in  Arnobius,  Lactantius, 
Ambrosius,  Augustine,  Cassianus,  Hilarius  of  Poitiers, 
Alcimus  Avitus  and  others. 


Ipse  =  Idem.  171 

Parallels  to  these  phrases  in  other  languages  will 
readily  suggest  themselves,  as  the  German  derselbe. 

In  all  of  these  collocations  the  demonstrative  pro- 
nouns, like  the  definite  article  in  cJ  auro?,  derselbe  and 
"the  same,"  aid  materially  in  the  expression  of  the 
idea  of  identity,  which  is  frequently  still  more  defi- 
nitely set  forth  by  the  addition  of  a  relative  clause. 
Good  examples  of  this  form  of  construction  are  Bell. 
Alex.  73  eum  ipsum  locum  cepit,  in  quo  Mithridates 
secundum  proelium  aduersus  Triarium  fecerat;  70  id 
ipsum  commemorarent  officium;  in  which  both  the 
relative  clause  and  the  correlative  pronoun  contribute 
to  the  expression  of  identity  {cf.  Veil.  Pat.  1,14,3  eo 
ipso  anno  quo;  2,125,4  his  ipsis  . . . .  gladiis,  quibus; 
Val.  Max.  4,5,6  inter  ipsum  illud  tempus,  quo;  Celsus 
7,4,4(p.  268  D);  Sen.  Contr.  1,2,12  {Gallio?iis  uerbd); 
Quint.  10,2,3). 

On  the  use  of  ipse  alone  in  the  sense  of  idem, 
there  is  but  scanty  information  to  be  found  in  the 
standard  text  books.  Neither  Kiihner  nor  Driiger 
mention  it.  Schmalz  in  Reisig's  Vorlesungen,  III, 
Anm.  369  (p.  102)  makes  only  one  brief  statement: 
"Manchmal  muss  es"  in  der  spateren  I^atinitiit  "die 
Stelle  von  idem  vertreten,  cfr.  Koffmane,  Geschichte 
des  Kirchenlateins  p.  137,  wo  dieser  Gebrauch  fiir  Com- 
modian  festgestellt  wird."  In  his  Histor.  Stilistik  (in 
Miiller's  Handbuch  II, i\  1900),  which  was  published 
twelve  years  later,  he  cites  no  earlier  example  than 
Fredegar  1,125  ipso  anno  =  eodem  anno.  According 
to  Sittl  and  Wolfflin  the  usage  is  African. 

The  earliest  instance  I  know  of  a  passage  in  which 
an  unsupported  ipse  approaches  idem  in  meaning  is 


172  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

Varro,  De  lying.  Lat.  9,84f.  sic  as et  unum  est  et 

multitudinis  habet  sensum  infinitum  ("the  plural  asses 
does  not  indicate  a  definite  number,  as  does  duo, 
decern,  etc.'');  dicimus  enim  asses  (indef.  pi.),  quos 
cum  finimus,  dicimus  dupondius  et  tressis  et  sic  porro. 
sic  uidetur  mihi,  quoniam  finitum  et  infinitum  habeat 
dissimilitudinem,  non  debere  utrumque  item  (  =  eodem 
modo)  dici,  eo  magis  quod  in  ipsis  uocabulis  ("in  the 
same  words  "  ) ,  ubi  additur  certus  numerus  in  miliarias 
II  militaris  Florentinus  ||  aliter  atque  in  reliquis  dici- 
tur;  nam  sic  loquontur:  hoc  mille  denarium,  non  hoc 
mille  denariorzcm  \\  sic  L.  Spengel;  denarii  F.  ||  et  haec 
duo  milia  denariz^w  ||  sic  uolg.;  denaria  F  1|  ,  non  haec 
d.  m.  de.n2ir:\ornvi  \\  sic  Christ  et  ly.  Spengel;  denarii 
F  II  .  We  may  thus  paraphrase  this  passage :  '  The 
word  as  is  singular  and  has  an  indefinite  plural' — i. 
e.,  the  plural  asses  in  and  of  itself  gives  no  indication 
of  the  number  of  asses  meant.  'Now  when  we  make 
the  number  of  asses  definite,  we  use  the  words  du- 
pondius, tressis,  etc.  Accordinglj-,  since  there  is  a  dif- 
ference between  the  definite  and  the  indefinite  plural 
in  this  word,  the  two  should  not  be  expressed  by  the 
same  form.  A  justification  for  making  such  a  distinc- 
tion is  found  in  the  usage  which  dictates  that,  when 
in  the  same  words  a  numeral  is  added  to  the  word  milia, 
making  the  number  of  the  thousands  definite,  a  special 
form  of  the  Genitive  plural,  not  analogous  to  the  regu- 
lar forms,  should  be  employed.  That  is  to  say,  usage 
demands  hoc  mille  denarium,  not  denariorum;  haec 
duo  m.  denarium,  not  denariorum.'  If  the  emenda- 
tions of  Christ  and  Spengel  are  correct,  Varro  implies 
that  we  should  say  multa  milia  denariorum,  but  decern 


Ipse  =  Idem.  173 

milia  denarium.  This  same  distinction  should  apply  on 
the  principle  of  analogy  to  sestertium  and  sestertiorum, 
nummuni  and  nuniniorum,  talentum  and  talentorum, 
medimnum  and  medimnoriim,  etc.;  and,  as  Varro  him- 
self points  out,  the  distinction  was  normally  made  in 
the  words  treuirum,  duumuirum,  etc.,  in  which  expres- 
sions the  shorter  form  of  the  Genitive  plural  was  em- 
ployed, although  the  longer  form  was  elsewhere  em- 
ployed. We  may  not  translate, '  'even  in  these  words' ' , 
a  force  often  carried  by  ipse,  for  Varro  is  not  compar- 
ing the  compounds  of  as,  with  any  other  words.  His 
only  point  is  either  "It  is  precisely  in  these  words  I 
am  discussing,  that  a  distinction  is  observed,"  or  "in 
one  and  the  same  word  the  distinction  is  observed." 
In  either  case  Varro  is  asserting  that  two  facts  are 
true  of  the  same  thing,  that  is,  according  to  the  first 
alternative  we  are  dealing  with  two  distinctions  of  the 
plural  forms  of  compounds  of  as,  which  distinctions 
may  be  set  forth  in  the  proportion: 

asses  :  dupondius,  tressis,  etc.  ::  denariorum  multa 
milia  :  denarium  haec  duo  milia 
In  this  case  in  ipsis  uerbis  ' '  in  the  same  words ' ' 
means  "  in  compounds  of  as.''  According  to  the  sec- 
ond assumption,  we  are  dealing  with  a  discrimination 
in  the  Genitive  plural  that  is  met  with  in  one  and  the 
same  word,  i.  e.,  denarium;  or  in  the  same  words  re- 
spectively, /.  e.,  denarius,  sestertius,  etc.  In  both 
these  cases  the  word  uocabulis  causes  some  difiiculties, 
perhaps  only  apparent,  which  are  not  removed  even 
by  the  interpretation  suggested  above  "even  in  these 
words' ' .  If  in  this  passage  the  word  his  stood  before 
ipsis,    no   scholar   would    find    anything  abnormal  in 


174  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

the  passage.  However  there  is  no  documentary  evi- 
dence that  a  word  has  been  lost.  The  passage  is 
important  as  being  the  earliest  instance  in  Latin  litera- 
ture of  the  encroachment  of  ipse  on  the  sphere  of 
idem. 

A  close  parallel  to  the  second  interpretation  pro- 
posed above  is  found  in  Pompeius,  Comm.  p.  ii8,7(K) 
nee  dicas  mihi,  positione  fit  longa  {sc.  the  last  sylla- 
ble of  cano  before  Troiae  in  Virg.  Aen.  i,i).  non  : 
nam  liquida  non  iuuat  nisi  in  ipsa  parte  orationis  ("in 
the  same  pars  orationis,"  i.  <?.,  with  the  lengthened 
syllable).  Compare  p.  i26,25(K)  in  eadem  parte 
orationis. 

In  a  passage  in  Manilius  ( i ,  698) ,  mentioned  by  Sittl^ 
Locale  Verschiedenheiten  der  latein,  Sprache  p.  115, 

Orbemque  ex  ilia  coeptum  concludit  in  ipsa. 

Ipsa  in  this  passage  rests  on  the  authority  of  the  best 
MSS.,  while  ilia  (adopted  by  Scaliger — Paris  1579, 
Heidelberg  1590,  Leyden  1609 — from  the  older  edi- 
tions) is  found  only  in  the  poorer  MSS.,  among  them 
Leidensis  3  (=  Voss.  2). 

I  am  unable  to  cite  instances  of  this  usage  from 
writers  between  ManiHus  and  Suetonius.  A  clear 
instance  is  found  in  the  latter,  Oct.  94  Augusto  uiso 
....  afl&rmauit  ipsum  esse  cuius  imago  secundum  qui- 
etem  sibi  obseruata  sit.  Possibly  the  use  of  ipse  is 
here  justified  by  its  reference  to  Augustus,  the  ahroq. 

Compare   Nero   24   aurigauit etiam   decemiugem, 

quamuis  id  ipsum  in  rege  Mithridate  reprehendisset. 
From  Minucius  Fehx  Sittl,  /.  c,  cites  11,4?;  7  and 
Landgraf  on  Cicero's  Roscius  Amer.  132  cites  4,4 
ipsius  sectae  homo,  where  Halm  proposes  superfluously 


Ipse  =  Idem.  175 

to  read  istius.  We  may  add  in  this  connection  the 
instructive  passage  30,4  Romanis  {^sc.  ritus  fuit)  Grae- 
cum  et  Graecam,  Galium  et  Gallam . . . .  uiuentes  ob- 
ruere,  hodieque  ab  ipsis. . . .  luppiter  homicidio  colitur. 
At  least  six  distinct  lines  of  evidence  may  be 
distinguished,  in  which  the  character  of  ipse  as  a  pro- 
noun of  identity  is  clearly  demonstrated  by  the  context. 
I .  Ipse  appears  parallel  with  idem  and  unus  either 

a)  in  one  and  the  same  sentence,  or 

b)  In  the  same  type  of  context,  but  in  distinct 

sentences. 
For  type 

I  a)  Tertullian  opens  the  series  with  the  passage, 
De  Spectac.  21  sic  ergo  euenit,  ut  qui  in  publico  uix 
necessitate  uesicae  tunicam  leuet,  idem  in  circo.... 
exuet;  ut  et  qui . . . . ,  ipse . . . . ;  et  qui . . . . ,  idem . .  . . , 
in  which  ipse  is  parallel  with  idem.  He  is  followed 
by  the  versio  vulgata  of  the  Pastor  Hermae,  praef. 
pastoris  uisionum  numero  quinque,  mandata  eiusdem 
numero  XII,  similitudines  ipsius  numero  X;  Arnob. 
4,22/>  eodem  ....  eodem  ....  eodem . .  . . ,  ipso  ....  ipso 
....;  and  Pomp.  Comm.  i27,32(K)  ergo  eadem  erit 
ratio  in  illis  pluribus,  quae  in  tribus  syllabis,  ipsa  in 
VI  syllabis,  ipsa  etiam  in  VIII. 

Ipse  stands  parallel  with  unus  in  Optatus  2,i5(p. 
50,8)  etenim  cum  African os  populos  et  orientales  et 
ceteros ....  pax  una  coniungeret  et  ipsa  unitas  . .  . . ; 
cf.  5, 1  (p.  121,17)  denique  et  apud  uos  et  apud  nos 
una  est  ecclesiastica  conversatio,  communes  lectiones, 
eadem  fides,  ipsa  fidei  instrumenta,  eadem  mysteria, 
in  which  sentence  it  is  apparent,  that  no  more  serious 
influence  than  the  desire  for  variety,  has  led  the  writer 


176  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

to  employ  four  different  words  to  express  the  idea  of 
identity.  Nor  are  the  resources  of  the  Romans  ex- 
hausted with  these  four  words  idem,  ipse,  unus,  com- 
munis, as  Optat.  5,4(p.  126,23)  shows:  permanent 
(^sc.  Trinitas  et  fides  credentis)  semper  hnvtiitabiles  et 
witnotae;  trinitas  enim  semper  ipsa'  est,  fides  in  sin- 
guHs  una  est.  This  passage  has  also  an  especial  value 
as  illustrating  another  point  of  contact  in  the  general 
meanings  of  ipse  and  idem.  We  might  here  translate 
the  last  phrase:  '  The  trinity  is  always  precisely 
itself ' ,  in  the  same  way  in  which  we  may  speak  of  a 
man  being  himself  under  all  circumstances.  We  mean, 
of  course,  not  that  the  trinity  is  itself  in  contradis- 
tinction from  some  other  thing,  but  that  it,  under  all 
circumstances,  displays  the  same  fundamental  charac- 
teristics, as  is  shown  by  the  words  that  immediately 
follow:  uim  suam  semper  retinent  ambae. 

I  b)  For  the  use  of  ipse  parallel  to  idem  but  in 
different  sentences  we  may  note  the  following  types  of 
construction : 

in  quoting  a  second  or  third  citation  from  the  same 
writer  the  usual  form  of  expression  employed  was 
idem  dicit  (Varro,  De  Ling.  Lat.  7,98  apud  Plautum 
....  (99)  apud  eundem.  So  Gellius,  Macrobius,  Au- 
gustine, Speculum  passim.  Instead  of  this  we  find 
ipse  in  Optatus  3,3  (p.  80,21);  3,5  (p.  85,23)— 
although  these  two  passages  admit  of  a  different  inter- 
pretation— in  Filastrius,  Heres.  Lib.  121  (--  149), 8 
ideo   et   Dauid   de   ludaeis  dicit:   "deleantur. . . ."  et 


1  Cf.  Ant.  Plac.  Itiner.  42(p.  188,10)  ipsam  uirtutem  semper 
operaretur,  cited  by  Geyer  in  his  index  under  the  rubric  ipse 
=  idem. 


Ipse  =  Idem.  177 

ipse  iterum:  "et  in...."  Compare  with  these  the 
titles  of  the  poems  of  Ennodius  (ed.  Vogel)  190  a 
ALITER  DE  EODEM;  190b  ALITER  DE  IPSO;  190c 
ALITER  DE  IPSO. 

In  the  above  citations  the  words  idem,  unus,  etc., 
almost  without  exception  precede  ipse.  It  seems 
hardly  probable  that  this  is  pure  accident.  I  should 
rather  be  inclined  to  regard  it  as  a  justification  for  the 
use  of  ipse  in  a  sense  which  it  does  not  usually  bear. 
In  this  way  the  reader  is  prepared  in  advance  for  the 
unusual  meaning  of  the  word. 

2.  In  other  cases  the  identification  of  ipse  with, 
idem  is  made  clear  by  a  contrast  in  varying  forms  with 
alius.  This  group  of  passages  is  opened  by  Minucius 
Felix  11,7  (words  of  CaeciHus)  uellem  tamen  sciscitare 
(the  discussion  is  about  the  resurrection),  utrumne 
cum  corporibus  |j  a7i  sme  corporibzis  add.  Halm  ||  ,  et 
corporibus  quibus,  ipsisne  an  renouatis  resurgatur? 
sine  corpore?  hoc,  quod  sciam,  neque  mens  neque 
anima  nee  uita  est.  ipso  corpore?  sed  iam  ante  dilap- 
sum  est.  alio  corpore?  ergo  homo  nouus  nascitur, 
non  prior  ille  reparatur.  Similarly  Ambrosius,  Exam, 
2,2,5(24d)  (section  4)  et  dixit  deus:  fiat  firmamentum 

prius  consideremus  quid  sit  firmamentum,  utrum 

ipsum  sit  quod  in  superioribus  caelum  appellauit  an 
ahud.  Ipse  is  contrasted  with  alter  in  Ennodius  212, 
6(=  carm.  2,94) 

Alter  te  dominus,  sed  manet  ipse  labor. 
Alius  must  be  read  between  the  lines  in  Serv.  ad  Virg. 
Geor.  1,458  hoc  ad  futurae  serenitatis  pertinet  signum: 
nam  si  de  ipso  die  dicas,  stultissimum  est. 

3.  So  completely  did  ipse  take  on  the  meaning  of 


25 


lyS  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

idem,  that  it  has  even  crept  into  certain  local,  temporal 
and  other  adverbial  phrases  and  formulae,  although 
such  combinations  are  usually  the  last  to  allow  any 
encroachment  on  their  spheres.  We  may  mention 
from  S.  Silv.  Peregrin,  in  ipso  loco  (2,2),  in  ipso 
itinere  (7,6),  in  ipsa  ecclesia  (25,11).  Commodian, 
Apol.  823  gives  us 

Kxurgit  interea  sub  ipso  tempore  Cyrus; 

Ale.  Avit.  Poem.  4,86  tempore  sub  ipso;  Jordanes, 
Get.  (60)307  in  ipso  tempore;  while  ipso  tempore 
without  a  preposition  appears  in  Optatus  2,2  (p.  39, 
6);  Vict.  Vitensis,  Hist.  Persecut.  Afr.  Prov.  1,43 
(=  1,14)  ipso  enim  Geisericus  praeceperat  tempore 
(observe  the  separation  of  ipso  from  its  substantive, 
also  noticeable  in  sect.  i9(=  1,6)  ipso  gestum  est  tem- 
pore); and  in  Jordanes,  Rom.  38. 

Ipsa  autem  die  occurs  in  S.  Silv.  Peregrin.  25,11 
(p.  76,29)  and  in  ipsis  diebus,  in  Cassianus,  Inst.  3, 
12  and  Conl.  21,20,3. 

Instead  of  the  normal  eiusdem  modi  or  eodem 
modo  we  find  in  Filastrius,  Heres.  I^ib.  122,1  (=  p. 
87,24)  ipso  modo. 

4.  There  are  numerous  other  passages  in  which  the 
general  context  shows  that  ipse  is  used  as  a  pronoun 
of  identity,  although  there  is  no  clear  parallelism  with 
special  words  such  as  idem  and  alius.  Such  are  Com- 
modian 2,16,9 

In  ipsis  uersaris  iterum; 
Apol.  829 

Ipse  redit  iterum  sub  ipso  saeculi  fine, 
and,  with  an  accompaning  similiter,  in  Ps-Hyginus, 


Ipse  =  Idem.  179 

De  lyimit.  Constit.  p.  207,10  prime  lapide  inscribe- 
mus  DM  KM.  ab  hoc  deinde  singulis  actuariis  limiti- 
bus  similiter  per  ipsos  inscribemus  DM  limes  II,  KM 
limes  II.     Other  examples  are  Commodian  1,6,1 

louis  tonat,  fulminat  ipse, 
(here  ipse  may  be  justified  by  its  reference  to  Jupiter); 
Script.  Hist.  Aug.  Firmus  3,3  f.  idem  {sc.  Firmus)  et 
cum  Blemmyis  societatem ....  tenuit ....  naues  quoque 
ad  Indos.  . .  .misit.  ipse  quoque  dicitur  habuisse  duos 
dentes  elephanti.  Yet  in  this  last  case  there  may  pos- 
sibly be  implied  in  ipse  a  contrast  between  the  general 
traffic  carried  on  by  Firmus'  boats  and  some  of  his 
private  acquirements  through  commerce.  Ipse  is 
found  twice  in  succession  in  Pompeius,  Comment,  in 
Donat.  p.  i99,24(K)  Uirgilius  scripsit  bucolica,  ipse 
scripsit  georgica,  ipse  scripsit  Aeneida.  It  is  not 
unlikely  that  Pompeius  found  this  citation  (for  the 
words  are  probably  not  Pompeius'  own)  in  Donatus. 
Similarly  in  Commodian  we  read  2,29,17 

Cum  ipsis  et  epulas  capitis  et  pascitis  ipsos. 
In  the  following  four  instances  the  context  proves  the 
usage  ipse  =  idem  with  especial  clearness:  Optatus 
1, 27 (p.  29,3)  in  ipsa  causa. . .  .duorum  laborare;  Au- 
gustine, De  Civ.  Dei  2, — (p.  103,19  D)  III  •  IV 
et  IV  •  III  ipsum  faciunt  (cited  by  I^andgraf,  ad 
Schol.  Gronov.  ad  Cic.  Rose.  Amer.  132,  p.  76); 
lyuc.  Car.  De  Reg.  Ap.  i,9(p.  18,9)  Sabelhus. . .  .fuerit 
ausus  dicere  ipsum  sibi  et  Patrem  esse  et  Filium  et 
Spiritum  Sanctum  (For  various  reasons  I  would  here 
assume  a  direct  Greek  influence) ;  Pompeius,  op.  cit.  p. 
205, 1  (K)  ipse  est  casus  in  istis:  et  cuias  nominatiuus 


i8o  The  Latin  Pr07wuns. 

est  et  cuiatis  nominatiuus  est;  Placidus,  lyib.  Glos- 
sarum  ed.  GOtz  V,  p.  133,17  pinus  ipse  plurari  («V/) 
singular!  que  numero;  Placitus,  De  Medicinis  ex  Ani- 
malibus,  24,5  uolturis  iecur  totutn  cum  sanguine  ipsius 
tritum ....  caducos  emendat  might  be  taken  to  mean 
"of  the  same  vulture",  (exactly  the  same  usage  30,4), 
did  not  the  phrase  strongly  remind  us  of  the  frequency 
with  which  Pliny  the  Elder  employs  ipse  to  mark 
an  entirely  superJEiuous  contrast  between  an  animal  or 
a  plant  itself  and  some  part  of  the  same  animal  or 
plant  or  with  some  thing  connected  with  them. 

Further  citations  are:  Optatus  3,5(p.  85,23);  6,4 
(p.  151,4);  in  both  of  which  passages  ipse  should  per- 
haps be  interpreted  as  an  equivalent  of  is,  although 
Ziwza  in  his  index  cites  them  as  ipse  =  idem;  Filas- 
trius  6,1;  60,2;  Cassianus,  Inst.  5,40,1;  Contr.  Nest. 
3.7.4;  4.6,7;  13.3;  Jordanes,  Getica  (35)182;  Rom.  32. 

The  conservative  style  of  the  jurisconsulti  did  not, 
as  it  seems,  admit  the  usage.  Kalb,  Roms  Juristen 
p.  140  knows  only 'one  instance  from  the  Digest,  a 
citation  from  Marcian  (D.  49,1,5,4),  and  we  cannot 
be  certain  that  even  this  is  not  the  result  of  the  liber- 
ties which  the  compilers  of  the  Digest  took  with  their 
sources. 

5.  The  old  Latin  translations  of  Greek  writings 
are  as  useful  to  us  in  writing  the  history  of  ipse  as  they 
were  in  discussing  iste.  Idem  appears  in  them  as  the 
regular  translation  of  £>  auroc,  yet  the  confusion  be- 
tween ipse  and  idem  led  frequently  to  the  employment 
of  the  former  as  a  translation  of  (>  awro?;  and  in  the 
process  the  correspondence  in  meaning  between  6  ah- 
To?  and  ipse   may  have  been  an  important  factor   of 


Ipse  =  Idem.  i8i 

influence.  The  painstaking  literal  character  of  the 
old  translations  may  still  further  have  encouraged  the 
tendency.  The  rendering  of  ro  abro  by  id  ipsum  has 
already  been  mentioned.  To  the  instances  cited  on  p. 
1 19,  we  may  add  Pastor  Hermae,  Mand.  10,3,3  iJ-^i^^yiJ-^^o. 
in\  TO  avTo  Versio  Palatina:  commixtum  in  id  ipsum 
(notice  that  id  has  lost  all  reference  to  any  particular 
antecedent).  Versio  Vulgata:  writes  simply  mixtum. 
The  usage  is  also  found  in  the  Vetus  Interpretatio 
I^atina  of  the  Kpistle  of  Barnabas  (5th  century  A.  D.). 
Ignatius,  Epist.  ad  Magnes.  (interpolata)  6  renders 
6  auToc;  8'.aiiiv£i  by  ipse  permanet,  and  Ad  Trail,  (inter- 
pol.)  6  translates  rabrdv .  .  .  .ehai  (sc.  Xiyouffcv)  r.azipa  xai 
ulov  xai  TtvsufjLa  dytov  by  ipsum  dicunt  esse  Patrem,  ipsum 
Filium,  ipsumque  Spiritum  Sanctum.  The  words 
cited  above  from  lyUcifer  Car.  1,9  are  a  literal  transla- 
tion of  this  passage.  From  the  Pastor  Hermae,  Vis. 
3,1,2  is  gleaned  also  aur^  r^  vuxr).  (observe  the  order  of 
the  words),  Versio  Palatina:  ipsa  nocte.  Vers.  Vul- 
gata: eadem  nocte  (cf.  3,10,7).  A  single  example 
from  the  New  Testament  will  suffice,  lyuke  10,21  iv 
avzf  TTj  &pa  in  ipsa  hora,  Vulgate,  caet.  b,  c,  d,  e,  f,  f^, 
i,  1,  q,  r;  eadem  a,  a';  ilia  E,  P  ""S  R.  The  Authen- 
tica  of  Justinian  do  not  stand  on  the  same  high  level 
of  purism  with  the  Digest.  In  the  former  ipsa  ap- 
pears: 
Novella  22,l8(p.   158,30  Sch.)  kx  r&v  aurwv  ahiutv 

=ex  ipsis  causis; 

4o(p.  175,25)  rat':  aUTa7c;  Tzoivai<; . .  .dnota^ 

=  ipsis  poeuis. .  .  .quas; 
(cf.  p.  175,33)  ^^7"  «"^'?^'  ^^"^^P 

=  eandem  quam  and  p.  176,7  iisdem  poenis); 


1 82  TJie  Latin  Pronoiais. 

25pr.(p.  196,4)  ix  Twv  auTU),' .  .  .  .TzpocpdfTtwv 

=  ex  ipsis  occasionibus; 
29, 1  (p.  219,34)  ^'^^  '''''^  auTY^g  rd^siog 

=  in  ipso  ordine. 
On  the  contrary,  apparently  under  no  special  condi- 
tions that  do  not  hold  as  well  in  the  cases  just  cited, 
6  auTu<;  is  rendered  by  idem  24,1  (p.  190,38)  in  idem; 
25, 1  (p.  197,17)  in  idem;  26,1  (p.  203,29)  in  idem; 
30,ii,/>r. (p.  234,16)  idem;  28, 4,2(p.  216,6)  sub  eodem; 
29.5,;^^-(p-222,35)  eandem;  49,/?'.  (p.  288,15)  in  idem. 
A  more  careful  examination  of  the  usage  of  the  Au- 
thentica  would  doubtless  reveal  some  interesting  facts. 

Along  with  these  translations  should  be  mentioned 
the  two  passages  cited  by  Kalb,  op.  cit.  p.  140  from 
the  Ivcx  Romana  Uisigothorum.  These  passages  are 
translated  from  Gains  into  Spanish  Latin:  Gains,  Inst. 
3,151  donee  in  eodem  consensu  perseuerant  =  L,ex 
Rom.  Uis.  2,9,17  ipso;  Gains  3,10  =  Lex  Rom.  Uis. 
2,8,3;  Gains  3,90  =  L,.  R.  U.  2,9,1. 

6.  Lastly  comes  the  definition  of  the  glossary  Cod: 
Vat.  2,?>^i{saec.  Wl)  apud  O'oiz,  C.  G.  L.  IV,  p.  89,1: 
idem  •   ipse. 

On  the  geographical  extension  of  the  usage  the 
range  of  authors  cited  above  throws  some  interesting 
and  valuable  light.  We  note  first  that  the  usage 
occurs  in  the  works  of  the  following  African  writers: 
Minucius  Felix,  Tertullian,  Arnobius,  Lactantius  (?), 
Ps-Cyprian,  Commodian,  Optatus,  Augustine,  Passio 
VII  Monachorum,  Victor  Vitensis,  Cerealis,  Fulgen- 
tius  Planciades,  and  in  Mauritania  (?)  (Pompeius  [Mau- 
rus]).  It  is  surprising  that  Apuleius  is  missing  from 
this  Hst.     Koziol  does  not  find  the  usage  in  his  works. 


Ipse  =  Idem.  183 

Florus,  the  historian,  was  also  doubtless  an  African. 
Although  he  uses  ipse  more  extensively  than  any  other 
Latin  writer,  he  does  not  know  it  in  the  sense  of  idem. 
So  great  is  the  frequency  of  this  usage  in  Africa  that 
some  scholars  have  been  led  to  regard  it  as  of  African 
origin  and  as  particularly  characteristic  of  the  African 
Latinity. 

Next  after  Africa  stands  southern  Gaul.  To  the 
extreme  west  belong  the  Peregrinatio  ad  I^oca  Sancta 
assigned  to  Saint  Silvia,  (also  perhaps  Antonini  Pla- 
centini  Itinerarium)  and  the  Lex  Romana  Uisigotho- 
rum,  506  A.  D.  Still  farther  to  the  north  is  Hilary  of 
Poitiers,  and  eastwards  are  Cassianus,  Salvianus  and 
Alcimus  Avitus.  From  Sardinia  comes  Lucifer  Cara- 
litanus  with  one  single  instance.  In  northern  Italy  we 
have  Ambrosius,  Filastrius,  Ennodius  and  Jordanes; 
in  central  Italy  Varro  the  Lex  Quinct.  de  Aqueduct., 
Marcian  (?),  Ps-Hyginus,  De  Limit.  Constituendis, 
Servius,  Placitus  (perhaps  influenced  by  a  Greek 
source,  perhaps  by  Pliny),  and  Macrobius.  To  these 
should  be  added  the  Scholia  Gronoviana  ad  Cic.  and 
the  glossary  Cod.  Parisinus  3321. 

In  other  words  the  usage  is  thoroughly  established 
in  the  western  Mediterranean  basin,  A  careful  study 
of  Prudentius,  Orosius,  Merobaudes,  Idacius,  Euge- 
nius,  Braulius  and  Isidore  would  perhaps  establish  it 
for  Spain. 

As  for  the  chronology,  the  earliest  indications  have 
been  discussed  above.  It  appears  in  Africa  certainly 
between  217  and  222  (Tertullian,  De  Pud.),  possibly 
shortly  after  203  (De  Resurrectione  Carn.)  or  even 
twenty    to   forty   years   earlier,  if  those   scholars  are 


184  The  Lati7i  Pronotms. 

right  who  assign  to  Minucius  FeHx  a  date  prior  to 
TertulHan's  Apologeticus  (pubHshed  in  the  year  197 
or  shortly  after.)  In  Aquitania,  south  eastern  Gaul 
and  Sardinia,  the  fourth  century  marks  the  begin- 
ing.  An  anonymous  manuscript  in  Kinsiedeln,  dating 
from  the  end  of  the  eighth  or  the  first  half  of  the 
ninth  century  and  containing  a  collection  of  inscrip- 
tions, may  be  cited  as  a  late  instance  of  this  usage  (C. 
I.  L.,  VI,  I,  No.  1199  a.  b.) 

In  the  compound  istum  +  ipsum  the  usage  has 
yielded  the  regular  Italian  pronoun  of  identity  stesso. 

We  would  naturally  expect  ipse,  after  it  became  so 
fully  identified  with  idem,  to  show  the  same  weaken- 
ing that  idem  shows  in  its  adverbial  use  in  classical 
I^atin.  Such  a  passage  is  Minutius  Felix  1,4  sic  solus 
in  amoribus  conscius,  ipse  socius  in  erroribus  (ipse  = 
item). 

B.    IPSE  =  ILI.E   OR   IS. 

The  essential  character  of  ipse  in  classical  lyatin  is 
found  in  the  fact  that  it  almost  invariably  connotes  a 
contrast  ((/.  Nagelsbach-Miiller,  /.  f.)  In  the  classi- 
cal Latinity  this  contrast  is  usually  strong  and  the 
antecedent  of  ipse  is  consequently  brought  very  promi- 
nently before  the  reader,  while  the  object  with  which 
it  is  contrasted  sinks  into  the  background.  Drager, 
Histor.  Syntax  I^,8i,  however,  remarks:  "erst  seit 
Curtius,  der  das  Pronomen  mit  besonderer  Vorliebe 
anwendet,  finden  sich  Stellen,  wo  dasselbe  das  Subject 
ohne  besondere  Hervorhebung  bezeichnet,  zum  Bei- 
spiel,  3,1,8  nisi  intra  eos  i^sc.  dies)  auxilium  Dareus 
ipsis  misisset."  Similar  in  purport  is  a  statement  of 
lyonnergren,  De  syntaxi  Sulp.  Sev.  (Upsala,  1882,  p. 


Ipse  =  Ilk  or  Is.  185 

10).  Krebs,  Antibarbarus  (5.  v.  ipse)  defines  the 
time  limit  of  this  usage  by  the  extremely  vague  word 
"schliesslich." 

At  the  ver}'  outset  we  must  realise  the  danger  of 
confusing  this  usage  with  that  discussed  in  the  previ- 
ous section.  There  are  many  passages  in  which  it  is 
very  difficult,  or  even  impossible,  to  decide  whether 
ipse  stands  nearer  to  idem,  to  ille  or  to  is.  For  exam- 
ple PVontinus,  De  Limit.  2  (p.  33,20)  si  fuerit.... 
uallis  quae  conspectum  agentis  exuperet,  per  ipsam 
metis  ad  ferramentum  adpositis  erit  descendendum, 
one  would  be  rather  inclined  to  assume,  that  ipse  bears 
the  meaning  of  is.  Possibly  some  of  the  passages 
cited  on  pp.  167,  168  should  be  transferred  to  this 
section.  A  most  perplexing  case  is  Acta  Apost.  16,33. 
Ronsch,  Collectanea  Philol.  p.  186  cites  this  passage 
from  the  Gigas  Bibliorum  Holmiensis  sumens  eos  ipsa 
hora  noctis  with  the  explanation  "ipse  fiir  is  und  ille." 
On  p.  loi,  however  (=  Vollmollers  Roman.  Forsch.  II, 
287  he  explains  this  ipse  as  equal  to  idem  and  compares 
22,13,  where  the  above  mentioned  text  and  the  Canta- 
brigensis  offer  ipsa  hora,  the  Vulgate,  however,  eadem 
hora.  Since  the  Greek  text  here  reads  aurrj  ttj  mpa^ 
while  in  16,33  ^^e  Greek  text  has  h.dviQ  rrj  &pa^  and 
the  Cod.  Cantabrigensis  correspondingly  reads  ilia, 
and  Laudianus  has  ea  and  Lucifer  Caralitanus,  De  non 
Parcendis  in  Deum  Delictis  p.  268  has  eadem,  one  cer- 
tainly cannot  fail  to  be  bewildered.  The  passage 
illustrates  with  remarkable  clearness  the  freedom  that 
prevailed  in  the  usage  of  the  pronouns  in  the  third 
and  fourth  centuries  of  our  era. 

Even   earlier   than   Curtius  there  are  passages  in 
26 


1 86  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

which  ipse  impHes  no  strong  contrast,  as  in  Catullus 
64,66  f. 

Omnia  quae  to  to  dilapsa  e  corpore  passim 

Ipsius  ante  pedes  fluctus  salis  adludebant. 
Moreover  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  interpreting 
ipse  in  the  sense  of  "the  mistress,"  the  Pythagorean 
ahzu^.  The  epic  poets  in  general,  who  could  not  make 
free  use  of  is,  showed  a  decided  preference  for  ipse, 
and  by  their  frequent  employment  of  the  word,  doubt- 
less paved  the  way  to  its  depreciation  in  meaning. 

There  is  a  second  passage  in  Varro,  Res.  Rust.  3, 
10,7  quotienscumque  sumpserunt  {^sc.  anseres  ad  sagi- 
nandum),  locus  solet  purgari,  quod  ipsae  ||  ipsi  Ju- 
cundus  II  amant  locum  purum,  neque  ipsae  ullum,  ubi 
fuerunt,  relincunt  purum.  The  context  does  not 
admit  of  the  translation  'not  even  these,'  for  there 
is  no  contrast  here.  The  only  possibilities  are  either 
to  take  ipse  as  an  equivalent  of  idem,  or  as  a  some- 
what strong  personal  pronoun. 

To  the  above  mentioned  passage  from  Curtius 
should  be  added  4,3,12  where  the  much  discussed 
MSS.  reading  ipsas  may  be  defended  as  a  strong  per- 
sonal pronoun:  tris  (naues)  ante  ipsa  moenia  oppo- 
suerunt  {sc.  Tyrii),  quibus  rex  inuectus  ipsas  dem- 

ersit. 

Pliny's  Nat.  Hist,  offers  several  peculiarities.  Very 
weak  indeed  is  the  contrast  between  dies  earum  {sc. 
halcyonum)  partus  and  auis  in  10,89:  dies  earum 
partus  maria  qui  nauigant  nouere.  ipsa  auis  paulo 
amplior  passere.  Very  similar  are  the  passages  28, 
48;  25,74  (ipsius  duo  genera);  29,101  fimum  gal- 
hnacium  ....  inpositum  et  vixxxis  aranei  caudae  cinis 


Ipse  =  Ille  or  Is.  187 

ita,  ut  ipse,  cui  abscissa  sit,  uiuus  dimittatur.  In 
Pliny's  Epist.  8,20,4  mihi  ostenditur  subiacens  lacus 
nomine  Uadimonis :  simul  quaedam  incredibilia  narran- 
tur.  perueni  ad  ipsum,  the  contrast  between  incredi- 
bilia and  lacus  is  weak  and  unnecessary.  Gerber  and 
Greef  cite  eight  passages  from  Tacitus  under  the  rubric 
"ui  quadam  imminuta" :  Hist.  4,11,11;  84,25;  Ann. 
1,1,12;  3,46,5;  68,6;  4,16,17;  68,10;  12,47,11.  Six 
are  from  the  Annals,  which  show  Tacitus'  freest  style. 

In  view  of  the  extensive  use  of  ipse  =  idem  in 
Africa,  it  is  not  surprising  that  we  should  find  ipse  = 
is  in  Apuleius,  Met.  2, 11  (p.  47,18)  quod  dictum  ipsius 
('of  his  wife')  Milo  risu  secutus,  "grandem",  inquit 
..  ..;  and  Florus  1,22(2, 6), 58  ille  Italiae,  hie  Hispa- 
niae  uictor ....  sed  et  colloquium  f uit  inter  ipsos  de 
legibus  pacis.  Possibly  ipse  in  this  passage  is  justified 
by  its  reference  to  the  leaders  of  the  two  armies. 

The  usage  is  found  in  the  earliest  of  the  patristic 
writers.  Minucius  Felix  3,1  minorem  ad  te  quam  ad 
ipsum  infamiam  redundare.  There  is,  to  be  sure,  a 
contrast  here,  but  not  between  two  objects  that  are 
closely  associated.  We  should,  however,  usually  hesi- 
tate to  interpret  the  word  in  this  way  when  its  ante- 
cedent is  Christus  or  deus. 

From  this  point  on  examples  may  be  easily  found 
by  reference  to  the  excellent  indices  in  the  volumes  of 
Vienna  Corpus  of  Ecclesiastical  Writers  and  the  Monu- 
menta  Hist.  Germaniae.  See  also  Ronsch,  Collect- 
anea Philol.  p.  186. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  atiroc  in  the  sense  which 
its  oblique  cases  often  bear,  contributed  not  a  little  to 
the  development  of  this  usage  of  ipse,  not  only  in  the 


1 88  The  Latin  Pro7iou7is. 

I^atin  translations  of  Greek  writings,  but  also  in  the 
entire  Patristic  literature,  which  was  subjected  to  a 
very  strong  influence  of  the  Greek.  From  the  numer- 
ous instances  of  ipse  =  auroc  that  these  writings  offer, 
we  select  the  following: 


Ipse  =  I  lie  or  Is. 


189 


u 
m 

5  y  a 
>  a  g 

0  : 


O 
o 


cu 
u 


O 


(/) 


O 

Oh 


O 

m 

a, 


a  Q 


o 


1/i 

(U 
Oh 

o 

XI 
a 

a 

<u 

X) 
a; 


"  o  a 

bG  § 

C     o 
a; 


^     <L» 


a 


o 

:3 


a 

O   =: 


u 

«»-H 

X! 

a. 

ctJ 


cd 


03 


.if 

a. 
^    ='■ 


1)     'bl 
-t-»    «o 


<u 


^n 
te 

N 


O  N 


a. 


'til 

I, 


K? 

B 

:x 


•3^ 


-cu 


3 


c< 


_     _       _    3 

•    <o        •     ■" 

C     ^       fl     '3 


(o 

« 


^ 


h-l    V    b- 
s     ^     ^"     •- 


'tit 


2- 


00" 


*3 
I- 


> 


a'i 


a 

a 
w 
s 

PL, 


a 

o 


a; 
;-! 

d    a; 


(U 


Td 

o 
o 


;-! 

OJ 

'V 

r-t 

»— i 

cu 

0 

tn 

d 

tfi 

C 

55 

0 

O. 

c 

a 

o 


'd 

rl 

a> 

a 

a 

'd 
=3 

Oh   -m 

cd     tfi 

a  a 

9  'S 


CL. 


•  »-) 

O 
c3 


d 


tf) 


CD 
U 

O 

be 
d 


X3 

o 

d 


a 


<n 


Vh 

1/i 

0 

o. 

1— ( 

a 

:3 

u 

0) 

=3 

0 

(A) 

Oh 

•»-H 

OJ 

r— ! 

t/) 

d 

190  The  Latin  Pronouns. 


<u 


^ 


1 

03 

a 

Ph 

;3 

XSI 

"^^ 

Oh 

0 

s 

<L> 

bb 

03 

^ 

0 

;-i 

■1-1 

rj        M 

<4H 

c3 

•  1-1 

oT 

• 

^1 

-S 

0" 

, 

^ 
0 

(D    -5 

0 

1 

(U 

C3 

;3     _ 

cT 

<1 

*-< 
•  I— 1 

S 
8 

0 

1» 

«-•     

t/i 

rH           • 

6 

G       . 

'T— < 

0 

3    0 

s 

<o 


-h'  1-.        O 


•^  rr.  I « r;  I -^  ^ " « 


8<   8=5   got  a  8  -S- 


d  OCX 

•  y  03  (i> 


5  =i. 


V' 


3^     1-1  cs   o  ci 


03       *-i         1  -     t-  ^  "<" 


3 


10 


4)  o3Sc3^  o3^o3  rC 


CHAPTER    V. 


CHAPTER    V. 


HIC,  ISTE,  ILLE,  IS,  IDEM,  IPSE,  IN  THE   FUNCTION  OP 

THE   DETERMINATIVE  AND   OF   THE   DEFINITE 

ARTICLE. — SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSION. 

In  this  chapter  I  shall  discuss  briefly  from  another 
point  of  view  the  subjects  treated  in  the  preceding 
chapters,  showing  how  the  Romans  made  the  pronouns 
serve  the  functions  of  the  definite  article  and  the  de- 
terminative, and  in  conclusion  shall  add  a  few  general 
statements  necessary  to  the  proper  appreciation  of  the 
arguments  set  forth  in  this  book. 

The  six  pronouns  is,  ille,  idem,  ipse,  hie  and  iste 
are  so  closely  inter-related  in  meaning  and  usage,  that 
a  full  understanding  of  the  development  of  each  of 
them  must  be  based  upon  a  due  consideration  of  all 
the  rest.  In  order  to  present  each  pronoun  in  its 
proper  perspective  and  to  set  forth,  at  least  in  broad 
outline,  its  relationship  to  the  others,  I  shall  be 
obliged  in  the  following  paragraphs  to  state  some  of 
the  results  obtained  in  my  study  of  the  pronouns  ille 
and  idem.  The  details,  however,  of  the  arguments 
on  which  these  results  are  based,  must  necessarily  be 
omitted  (see  Preface,  p.  vii). 

Probably  none  of  the  six  pronouns  mentioned  ap- 
proach each  other  so  closely  in   meaning  as  do   the 

determinative  and  the  remote  demonstrative.     They 
27 


194  ^^^^  Latin  Pronou7is. 

are  both  used  mainly  to  refer  to  definite  antecedents, 
both  are  Tpnurpira,  and  both  may  be  used,  and  are  fre- 
quently used,  in  referring  to  an  object  remote  from  the 
speaker,  in  space,  time  or  interest.     Accordingly  it  is 
not  surprising  that,  as  the  pronoun  is  gradually  lost 
its  force  and  sank  to  a  syntactical  element  which  car- 
ried but  little  independent  meaning,  and  as  the  need 
was  felt  for  some  other  means  of  expressing  the  mean- 
ing formerly  carried  by  is,  recourse  was  first  had  to 
ille.     It  needs  no  arguments  to  prove  that  in  Plautus' 
time  ille  had  in  general  a  much  stronger  force  than  the 
pronoun   is.     The   legal   literature,    the   language   of 
which  is  always  conservative,  and   Cato's  De   iVgri- 
cultura  {cf.  supra  p.  28  f.)  supplies  us  with  an  approxi- 
mate standard  for  estimating  the  average  prose  usage 
of  a  period  considerably  antedating  the  years  in  which 
they  were  actually  written,  e.  g. ,  of  the  time  of  Plautus.' 
Nevertheless,  conspicuous  indications  in  Plautus'  lan- 
guage point   to   the  beginings  of  later  and  weakened 
meanings  of  ille.     On   this  point  see  Bach,  op.  cit.  p. 
296.     The  deterioration  of  ille  was  in  large   part  a 
consequence  of  its  use  as  a  substitute  for  is,  but  was 
doubtless  materially  hastened   by  the  extensive  use 
which    the   orators   made   of   it,  and   by  the    tide  of 
rhetorical  influences  that  set  in  from  Greece  with  the 
end  of  the  third  century  B.  C.  and  rose  to  so  strong 
a  flood  in  the  "silver"    age.     In  the  period  last  men- 
tioned the  proportionate  increase  in  the  use  of  ille  over 

1  Pro\dded,  of  course,  a  later  recension  has  not  materially 
affected  the  usage  of  ille  and  is.  Since  such  a  recension  must 
have  been  made  before  Pliny  the  Elder  wrote,  I  hold  it  for  im- 
probable that  the  pronouns  were  much  changed. 


Ille  —  Is  and  Idem  —  Is.  195 

is  is  very  conspicuous,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  tables 
on  pp.  30  and  31  above;  and  this  numerical  predomi- 
nance of  ille  implies  a  corresponding  weakening  in 
its  meaning. 

In  the  form  ille  qui  particularly  it  made  headway 
against  is;  but  there  are  other  phrases,  in  which  ille 
would  have  been  impossible  or  at  least  inappropriate 
as  a  substitute  for  is.  Hence  recourse  was  not  had 
exclusively  to  it.  Next  after  ille  the  pronoun  earliest 
called  into  requisition  was  hie  (see  chap.  II).  Not 
that  the  two  demonstratives  were  synonj^mous.  It 
was  their  very  difference  in  meaning  that  made  possi- 
ble the  use  of  both  of  them  as  substitutes  for  is  at  the 
same  time,  while  vice  versa,  the  actual  use  of  the  two 
in  contexts  formerly  reserved  for  is  tended  to  reduce  to 
a  minimum  this  difference  in  their  meaning.  For  ex- 
ample, as  soon  as  hie  came  to  be  used  of  objects  that 
had  no  closer  relation  to  the  subject  than  that  of  occu- 
pying a  place  in  his  sympathies  or  interest,  it  could  be 
used  of  objects  remote  in  space  and  time,  to  which  at 
an  earlier  stage  in  the  development  of  the  pronoun, 
only  ille  could  have  been  applied. 

The  above  statements  apply,  mutatis  muta^idis,  to 
idem,  which  was  used  as  early  as  Nepos  (see  L,upus, 
op.  cit.  p.  1 10)  in  connections  in  which  the  idea  of 
identity  is  clearly  implied  in  the  context  and  where 
the  use  of  a  special  word  to  point  it  out  is  superfluous. 
Such  a  sentence  is  well  illustrated  by  the  German 
(especially  Swiss)  usage:  Er  niiherte  sich  dem  Hause 
und  ging  an  demselben  vorbei;  and  the  English:  'We 
examined  the  system,  and  found  the  same  to  be. ... ,' 
or  the  lyatin  of  Nepos,   Epam.   10,4  Thebas  et  ante 


196  The  Lathi  Pro7iouns. 

Epaminondam  natum  et  post  eiusdem  interitum,  cited 
by  IvUpus;  cf.  Dion  2,3.  The  types  of  context  in 
which  idem  could  replace  is  are,  of  course,  less  numer- 
ous than  in  the  case  of  ille.  Idem  qui  for  is  qui  was 
common.  Idem  as  a  substitute  for  is,  found  especial 
favor  with  the  historians,  chiefly  during  the  period  of 
the  "silver"  Latin,  and  to  some  extent  even  later. 
Idem,  like  is,  became  entirely  obsolete  in  time,  and 
ille  and  ipse  took  its  place. 

The  use  of  ipse  as  a  determinative  has  been 
touched  upon  above  (see  pp.  i85f.).  The  nature  of 
the  change  in  meaning  is  analogous  in  all  the  fore- 
going cases.  The  meaning  becomes  less  specific,  and 
consequently  the  range  of  the  application  of  the  word 
continually  widens.  Just  as  ille  gradually  lost  the 
character  of  a  remote  demonstrative,  and  came  to  be 
used,  not  to  call  attention  to  the  remoteness  of  an 
object,  but  to  refer  to  the  given  object  simply  because 
it  was  remote;  and  just  as  hie  and  idem  similarly  lost 
the  character  of  a  near  demonstrative  and  pronoun  of 
identity  respectively;  so  the  implication  of  a  contrast 
gradually  passed  out  of  the  complex  of  ideas  repre- 
sented by  ipse.  This  change  begins  to  make  itself 
apparent  in  our  extant  literature  about  the  same  time 
as  the  corresponding  changes  in  hie  and  idem,  but  the 
substitution  of  ipse  for  is  does  not  become  common 
until  comparatively  late.     For  iste  —  is  see  pp.  158  f. 

Of  these  five  competitors  for  the  position  of  is, 
idem  seems  entirely  to  have  disappeared  from  use 
(unless  it  exists  in  the  Ital.  desso),  hie  has  succeeded 
in  maintaining  itself  only  in  the  neuter  reinforced  form 
ecce-hoc   (French  ce,   Ital.   cio).     Ipse  succeeded  in 


The  Defi)iite  Article.  197 

establishing  itself  over  a  large  territory,  yet,  even  ipse 
either  shares  its  domain  with  ille,  as  in  ancient  times, 
or  takes  on  the  special  meaning  of  the  Spanish  eso', 
Ille  therefore,  which  was  the  first  pronoun  to  claim 
the  place  of  the  determinative,  maintained  its  pre- 
dominence  from  first  to  last. 

In  the  cases  just  discussed  the  substantive  use  of 
the  pronouns  prevailed.  The  peculiarities  they  show 
in  their  development  as  adjectives  are  not  less  inter- 
esting. They  all,  with  the  possible  exception  of  iste, 
tend  to  deteriorate  to  mere  definite  articles.  The  fol- 
lowing paragraphs  are  nothing  more  than  a  few  notes 
on  the  various  aspects  of  the  problem.  A  full  discus- 
sion would  necessitate  an  extensive  study  of  the  his- 
tory of  the  definite  article  in  other  branches  of  the 
Indo-European  languages;  and  I  have  not  time  at 
present  to  undertake  such  a  study. 

^  Since  writing  this,  I  have  received  the  Arcliivio  Glottologico 
Italiano  XV, 3,  on  pp.  303-316  of  which  Ascoli  discusses  the  rela- 
tion of  the  modern  derivatives  from  ipse  to  their  classical  proto- 
type. On  p.  306  he  affirms  that  the  expression  'kku-epso  (he 
thus  writes  it  to  avoid  committing  himself  either  to  original 
eccum-ipsum  or  atque-ipsum) ,  not  only  in  the  Spanish  eso,  but  in 
all  parts  of  the  Romance  territory  in  which  it  occurs,  is  used  as  a 
pronoun  of  the  second  person  ("ha  sempre  quella  funzione  che 
dicono  di  dimostrativo  'di  secondo  persona',  cioc  di  codesto"). 
I  am  not  ready  to  accept  this  affirmation,  which  is  of  far  reach- 
ing importance,  without  more  specific  proof  than  Ascoli  brings 
forward.  The  character  of  the  literature  that  makes  up  our 
sources  of  information  on  these  popular  idioms,  is  such  that  one 
is  in  great  danger  of  being  misled  in  forming  conclusions  on 
such  a  point  as  this. 

I  also  note  with  much  interest  his  statement  on  p.  314  :  La 
scarsa  funzione  aggettivale  di  esso  e  pure  nel  senso,  benche 
attenuate,  del  pronome  d'identitii. 


198  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

The  use  of  ille  as  a  definite  article  has  long  been 
recognized  and  attention  has  frequently  been  called  to 
such  constructions  as  Medea  ilia  ( =  ^  M-^d^ia) ,  which 
is  also  extended  to  appellatives  {cf.  Nepos,  Arist.  1,2 
testula  ilia  and  the  accepted  reading  of  Tac.  Germ. 
14,11  f.  cited  above,  p.  107),  ille  alter  (as  old  as  Plau- 
tus),  ille  octauus,  etc.,  ille  +  a  substantivized  partici- 
ple {cf.  Hor.  Sat.  1,1,115  —  ^  passage  that  offers  a 
clearer  instance  of  ille  •=  article  than  illis  quaesitis  in 
Hor.  Sat.  i,i,37f.),  and  citations  by  the  score,  begin- 
ning mth  the  locus  classicus  Cic.  Aratea,  apiid  De  Nat. 
Deor.  2,114,  might  be  adduced  in  which  ille,  in  Latin 
translations  of  Greek  writings,  stands  as  an  equivalent 
of  the  Greek  article. 

As  was  stated  in  chapter  I,  is  was  the  weakest  in 
meaning  of  the  six  pronouns  under  discussion,  and  in 
fact  differed  in  many  instances  but  very  slightly  from 
the  use  of  the  definite  article  in  the  modern  English 
and  German  languages.  This  is  true  in  particular  of 
such  sentences  as  Cic.  Lael.  2  . . .  .memini. ...  in  eum 
sermonem  ilium  {sc.  Scaeuolam)  incidere,  qui  tum  fere 
multis  erat  in  ore,  '  I  remember  that  Scaevola  men- 
tioned the  subject  that  was. . .  .on  the  lips  of  every- 
one.' The  demonstrative  force  here  retained  by  eum 
can  be  no  stronger  than  would  be  expressed  by  an 
attenuated  English  "that,"  should  we  substitute  it  for 
"the"  in  the  above  translation.  It  particularizes  the 
substantive  and  points  it  out  as  one  that  is  to  be 
further  defined  immediately.  By  doing  so  it  serves 
the  function  of  a  definite  article.  The  construction  is 
not  so  common  as  one  might  at  first  be  inclined  to  sup- 
pose.    There  are  only  about  half  a  dozen  instances  in 


Hie  and  the  Definite  Article.  199. 

Cicero's  Laelius.     The  examples  in  Tacitus  are  mostly 
found  in  the  Dialogue  on  Oratory'. 

It  naturally  follows  from  the  above,  that  when  ille 
began  to  take  the  place  of  is,  it  also  took  on  the  func- 
tion of  the  article  in  such  sentences  as  the  above. 
The  change  was  going  on  in  the  first  century  of  the 
empire,  as  the  works  of  Seneca  the  Younger  testify. 

Hie  seems  not  to  have  been  very  extensively  used 
in  this  weakened  sense.  Expressions  like  I,upercal 
hoc ....  ludicrum  lyiv.  1,5,1,  and  nuptialem  hanc  uocem 
lyiv.  1,9,12  correspond  to  the  type  Medea  ilia,  but  are 
of  comparatively  infrequent  occurrence.  In  the  two 
examples  just  cited,  there  is  no  particular  contrast 
implied  in  hoc,  and  I  should  be  disinclined  to  assume 
a  strong  demonstrative  force  for  the  word,  although 
it  unquestionably  retains  clear  traces  of  its  normal 
meaning. 

Two  further  questions  concerning  the  use  of  hie  as 
an  article  must  be  mentioned  here.  They  both  have 
their  origin  in  the  use  of  hie  as  a  substitute  for  o,  5j, 
T<5,  etc.  In  the  one  case  hie  is  found  in  I^atin  transla- 
tions of  Greek  writings,  where  the  Greek  text  shows 
the  article;  in  the  other  case  hie  is  used  by  Roman 
grammarians  in  paradigms,  where  in  the  Greek  para- 
digms the  definite  article  is  employed. 

Ever  since  the  publication  of  Kaulen's  Handbuch 
der  Vulgata,  Mainz,  1870  {cf.  §  72),  the  attention  of 
scholars  has  occasionally  been  called  to  the  use  of 
forms  of  hie,  representing  the  Greek  article,  in  various 


^  For  is  =  definite  article  see  also  Ronsch,  Itala  und  Vul- 
gata: das  Sprachidioni  der  Urchristlichen  Itala  und  der  katho- 
lischen  Vulgata,  2d  edition,  Marburg,  1875,  p.  423. 


200  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

early  L,atin  translations  of  the  Scriptures.  Hermann 
Ronsch  has  shown  himself  more  industrious  than 
others  in  the  collection  of  such  examples.  In  his 
Itala  und  Vulgata,  pp.  420-422,  under  the  rubric 
"Artikelgebrauch  von  hie''  he  has  printed  a  long  list; 
and  in  his  Semasiologische  Beitriige  zum  lateinischen 
Worterbuch,  zweites  Heft,  Leipzig,  1888,  p.  17,  under 
the  lemma  "hie  =  Artikel,"  he  supplements  the 
earlier  list  by  twelve  further  examples.  The  form  of 
the  rubric  he  employs  certainly  implies  that  he  supposes 
hie  not  to  be  simply  a  Latin  substitute  for  the  Greek 
article,  but  its  equivalent  in  meaning.  Kaulen  /.  e. 
plainly  says,  hie  und  is  haben  in  manchen  Stellen 
schon  ihren  deiktischen  Charakter  verloren  und  sind 
zu  blossen  Artikelbezeichnungen  geworden ....  Fur- 
thermore, since  Ronsch  in  his  later  book  uses  the  sign 
of  equality  in  the  sense  of  "means"  {cf.  p.  16  "haben- 
tia  =  ea  quae  habentur' '  and  '  'gracilis  =  fein,  diinn' ' ) , 
we  must  conclude  that  he  had  not  changed  his  views 
on  the  subject  in  the  interim  between  the  publication 
of  the  two  books.  I  must  confess,  however,  to  grave 
doubts  of  the  correctness  of  his  judgment  on  this 
point,  for  the  following  reasons: 

Ronsch  has  himself  so  arranged  his  citations  that  a 
moment's  examination  of  them  reveals  the  fact  that 
sixty-eight  out  of  his  ninety-three  examples,  i.  e., 
about  three-fourths  of  the  entire  number,  present, 
under  one  form  or  another,  the  locution  hie  mundus 
(corresponding  to  the  Greek  6  y-oirfinq) .  Now  no  one 
who  has  read  the  Latin  Patristic  literature  extensively 
can  have  failed  to  note  the  very  frequent  occurrence  of 
this  expression.     The  contrast   between    the   present 


Hie  and  the  Definite  Article.  201  ■ 

world  and  the  future  life  had  become  a  part  and  parcel 
of  the  religious  experience  of  the  early  Christian. 
The  Church  Fathers  continually  dwell  upon  this  con- 
trast, and  hie  mundus,  or  still  stronger  iste  mundus 
{cf.  S7(pra,  p.  125),  which  clearly  expresses  this  con- 
trast, was  as  familiar  to  their  ears  as  is  "this  world" 
to  those  of  the  modern  divine.  In  fact,  hie  had  be- 
come a  standing  epithet  of  mundus,  and  while  not  so 
inseparably  bound  up  with  its  substantive  as  hoc  was 
in  the  word  hodie,  and  as  hanc  afterward  came  to  be 
in  the  expression  ad  hanc  horam,  from  which  the  Ital- 
ian ancora  is  derived,  hie  was  nevertheless  intimately 
associated  with  it.  We  shall  accordingly  be  justified 
in  assuming  that  in  translating  6  xdajioq  the  ancients 
were  influenced  rather  by  a  natural  tendency  to  reduce 
every  mention  of  the  word  mundus  to  the  traditional 
form  hie  mundus,  rather  than  by  any  desire  to  give  an 
exact  semasiological  equivalent  of  the  Greek  article. 
In  short,  the  mere  existence  of  hie  in  this  expression, 
in  which  it  implies  a  contrast,  removes  it  in  meaning 
from  the  sphere  of  the  article. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  remaining  twenty-five 
instances  cited  by  R5nsch. 

The  citations  2  Cor.  7,10  huius  saeculi  {cod.  h), 
2  Cor.  5,1  huius  habitationis  {codd.  h,  Boern.  Amia- 
tinus,  Toletanus)  and  2  Mace.  7,9  aptcd.  Cyprian,  Ad 
Fortunatum  11  hac  praesenti  uita,  fall  into  the  same 
category  with  hie  mundus,  although  it  must  frankly 
be  admitted  that  the  addition  of  praesenti  in  the  last 
case  is  indicative  of  some  weakening  in  the  force  of  hie 
as  a  near  demonstrative.  Yet  it  has  not  become  sim- 
ply a  definite  article,  because,  if  it  had,  we  should 
28 


202  Th€  Latin  Pronouns. 

expect  now  and  then  to  meet  ooroq  6  xoffiiot;  in  the  un- 
heard of  Latin  garb  iste  hie  mundus.' 

In  lyUc.  17,17  hi  decern  {cod.  e,  according  to 
Ronsch; — he  should  have  added:  a,b,c,  d,  f  ^  i,  q,  s; 
cod.  D  reads  oumt^  for  ootoi).  The  occurence  of  hi  in 
so  many  different  versions  forces  the  conclusion  that  it 
is  due  to  the  existence  of  a  ohrot  in  the  Greek  text, 
although  only  cod.  D  cum  man.  sec.  and  codd.  AU  show 
it  now,  and  although  it  may  have  arisen  from  a  mis- 
understanding of  oux  '«  in  the  original  text. 

In  the  citation  from  Apoc.  20,6,  apud  Primasius, 
Commentum  in  Apoc,  in  hac  prima  resurrectione,  it  is 
clear  that  the  Greek  phrase  aor-q  rj  avdarafaq  ij  Tzptbrri  in 
§  5  immediately  preceding  the  Latin  phrase  cited,  led 
to  the  insertion  of  the  pronoun  hac.  Whether  it  was 
intentional  on  the  part  of  the  translator,  or  was  due  to 
a  confusion  of  the  two  phrases  either  in  his  mind  or 
that  of  a  later  copyist,  is  a  matter  of  indifference. 

It  was  likewise  no  desire  to  give  an  exact  render- 
ing of  the  Greek  article,  that  influenced  the  makers  of 
the  translations  of  Phil.  3,16  contained  in  codd.  Boern. 
and  h  and  the  translator  of  Barnabas,  Epist.  4,5  to  use 
forms  of  hie  in  translating  forms  of  ru  abro  by  hoc 
ipsum.  This  phrase,  running  side  by  side  with  id 
ipsum,  and  bearing  the  meaning  of  idem,  was  a  stereo- 
typed expression  like  hie  mundus  {cf.  supra  p.  167). 
Certainly  the  uetus  interpretator  of  the  letter  of  Bar- 
nabas did  not  intend  hoc  to  stand  as  an  equivalent 
for  TO  in  the  passage  cited,  as  is  shown  by  the  circum- 

'  This  statement  may  be  venturesome,  since  our  manuscripts 
would  in  such  cases  probably  show  istic  or  isthic  {cf.  supra  p. 
143)- 


Hie  and  the  Defiyiite  Artiele.  203 

stance  that  no  where  else  in  his  translation  does  hie 
represent  o,  ly,  to,  ete.  To  be  sure  the  phrase  hi  qui 
occurs  twice  in  chap.  8,  where  it  must  be  regarded, 
however,  as  an  orthographical  variant  for  ii  qui',  and 
in  a  few  cases,  ^.^.,  1,5;  2,1;  2,4;  5,5;  9,5  (hoc  est); 
10,4;  10,7  (hoc  est);  10,11  (hoc  est);  12,3;  13,2;  15,6; 
it  is  inserted  in  the  I^atin  translation^,  where  the 
I,atin  idiom  requires  it,  although  there  is  no  corre- 
sponding expression  in  the  Greek  text.  Yet  it  nor- 
mally* translates  outoc*  or  ra^e^.  Hie  certainly  retains 
in  this  work  some  traces  of  its  classical  force.  Other- 
wise we  should  not  find  huius  temporis**,  instead  of 
huius  nunc  temporis,  representing  rob  vuv  xatpou  in  4,1; 
nor  would  haec  sabbata  in  15,8  represent  rd  vov  ffdji- 
^ara'.  In  view  of  all  this  it  is  extremely  improbable, 
that,  while  scores  of  opportunities  for  translating  the 
article  by  hie  occur  in  the  letter,  the  translator  should 
have  availed  himself  of  only  one  of  these. 

Four  further  passages  mentioned  by  Ronsch  (Mich. 
1,13;  7,20  huic  lacob;  Hos.  2,8;  Psalm  96,1)  show 
hie  before  an  indeclinable  proper  name,  where  it  serves 
to  indicate  the  grammatical  case  and  gender  of  the 
substantive;  while  in  7,20  huic  Abrahae  follows  the 
analogy  of  huic  lacob  that  immediately  precedes. 

Ex  hoc  nunc  (Greek,  and  rod  vDv)  occurs  four  times 

'  Numerous  parallels  might  be  cited  (c/.  supra  pp.  23-25). 
^Usually  the  forms  hoc  or  haec. 
^  There  are  forty-five  instances. 

"^ovTOQ,  is  translated  by  iste  in  only  one  passage,  10,4. 
*  Only  in  citations  from  the  Scriptm-es. 
^  cf.  Ivivy  1,56,2  noua  haec  magnificentia. 
'  In  chap.  9  et  hi  corresponds  oddl}'  enough  to  mnelvoc  (/.  e., 
lovdaloi). 


204  The  Latin  Pronoiins. 

in  the  Verona  Psalter.'  The  hoc  is  here  the  result  of 
an  attempt  to  get  around  the  difficulty  that  the  Rom- 
ans found  in  using  an  adverb  as  the  object  of  a  prepo- 
sition. 

The  phrase  principes  huius  populi  (for  ap-^ovTe<;  rou 
^aod)  in  Act.  4,8  seems  to  be  a  Biblical  reminiscence 
(cf.  Isaiah  i,io  aptid  Barnabas,  Epist.  9,3  principes  p. 
h.  =  dp-/,  r.  k.  T.;  Deut.  4,1  hi  op.  cit.  10,2;  Jer.  2,12 
in  op.  cit.  11,2  p.  hie  =  o  X.  ooro<;. 

Of  the  remaining  nine  out  of  the  ninety-three 
cases,  four  show  some  form  of  hie  applied  to  an  actu- 
ally existing,  material  object,  which  is  in  the  presence 
of  the  speaker  and  to  which  he  directs  the  attention  of 
his  listeners.  All  four  passages  are  direct  discourse; 
and  in  all,  the  context  permits  the  interpretation  of  hie 
in  its  classical  sense,  or  even  with  deictic  force. 

The  remaining  five  passages  are  Mich.  1,13  huic 
filiae(?)  {cod.  Fuldensis),  in  which  the  text  is  doubt- 
ful; 3  Esdr.  8,15  (should  be  33?);  Act.  4,37,  in  which 
there  seems  to  be  most  justification  for  taking  hie  as 
an  article;  11,22,  where  hie  maybe  interpreted  as  a 
resumptive  "this,"  and  is  closely  paralleled  by  lyivy 
1,21,4  ad  id  sacrarium,  for  ad  eius  or  huius  sacrarium; 
and  Act.  19,23. 

So  Ronsch's  ninety- three  examples  of  "hie  =  Ar- 
tikel"  reduce  themselves  to  at  most  five,  and  even 
these  are  not  beyond  question. 

I  have  gone  into  this  detailed  discussion  of  the  sub- 
ject,  in   order  to  point  out,  first   that  we  must  not 

^  The  references  are  113,18;  120,8;  124,2;  130,3.  In  the 
Vulgate  also  it  represents  the  same  Greek  phrase  in  Psalm.  112, 
2,  a  passage  overlooked  by  Ronsch. 


Iste  and  the  Definite  Article.  205 

only  be  very  careful  in  our  use  of  the  evidence  afforded 
by  these  early  translations,  but  that  we  must  accu- 
rately distinguish  between  the  use  of  a  Latin  word  as 
a  substitute  for  a  Greek  word  and  as  a  semasiological 
equivalent  of  it;  and  secondly  that  in  the  present  case 
the  evidence  that  the  translations  offer  for  the  use  of 
hie  as  an  article  is  very  scanty. 

As  to  the  second  question  mentioned  above,  we 
cannot  regard  the  technical  use  of  hie  in  paradigms, 
as  in  any  sense  indicative  of  a  weakening  in  the 
force  of  hie,  much  less  as  proving  it  to  be  synony- 
mous with  the  definite  article.  If  any  arguments 
were  necessary  to  establish  so  patent  a  truth,  we  might 
refer  to  the  fact  that  its  occurrence  in  Varro,  De 
I/ing.  Lat.  8,22  and  9,52  implies  its  use  at  an  earlier 
date,  when  hie  certainly  retained  its  full  force  as  a 
near  demonstrative.  It  is  in  no  sense  a  definite  arti- 
cle, but  merely  a  convenient  device  for  indicating 
the  gender  and  case  of  a  word. 

If  hie  was  seldom  used  as  a  definite  article,  it  natu- 
rally follows  that  iste  was  even  more  rarely  so  used; 
because,  as  we  have  seen  above  (see  chap.  Ill),  iste 
had  a  much  stronger  demonstrative  force  than  did  hie, 
and  naturally  came  to  take  the  place  of  the  latter. 
Consequently  the  use  of  iste  as  an  article,  if  it  was 
ever  so  used,  must  have  occurred  long  after  hie  sank 
to  that  stage.  We  find  this  view  fully  confirmed  by 
the  evidence  of  the  texts.  I  have  found  only  three 
instances  of  the  use  of  iste  in  Latin  translations  rep- 
resenting the  Greek  o,  ^,  to,  etc.  The  first  is  found  in 
the  Versio  Palatina  of  the  Pastor  Hermae,  Sim.  9,14,2 
(cited  by  Haussleitner  in  Luthardt's  Zeitschr.  f.  kirch. 


2o6  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

Wiss.  1885,  p.  98)  where  the  Greek  reads  lav  robnoy 
TU)v  yuvacxaJv  aTzo^dlkuxri  rd  epya,  ru>v  3s  izapdiviov  dvaXdfiuiat 
zTjv  duvafiiv]  the  Versio  Palatina  reads  si  abiecerint 
omnia  opera  muHerum  illarum,  et  istarum  uirginum 
resumpserint  potentiam;  the  Versio  Vulgata,  however, 
reads  just  the  same,  except  that  it  substitutes  potesta- 
tem  for  potentiam,  and  harum  for  istarum.  Plainly 
both  these  translators  were  led  to  use  the  near  demon- 
stratives harum  and  istarum'  by  a  desire  to  contrast 
mulierum,  the  women  who  personify  pleasure  and  sin, 
with  uirginum,  who  personify  the  potestates  filii  Dei. 
He  refers  to  the  former  by  illarum,  since  they  are 
remote  from  his  sympathies.  The  second  passage  is 
Pastor  Hermae,  Vis.  3,3,1  ti  lanv  rd  T^pdyiiara;  Pala- 
tina, quae  sint  res  istae  ? ;  Vulgata,  quae  sunt  hae  res  ? 
Hae  and  istae  were  written  here  under  the  influence  of 
the  preceding  haec,  and  refer  to  objects  near  the 
speaker.  But  they  were  certainly  very  weak,  even 
though  they  retain  traces  of  a  stronger  meaning.  In 
Ignatius,  Epist.  ad  Tarsenses  ex  Philippis  i  iniquo- 
rum  istorum=T5v  Setvibv,  but  istorum  implies  contempt. 

These  three  passages  cannot  justify  us  in  assuming 
that  iste  was  very  largely  used  as  an  article.  Its  use 
in  modern  Spanish  with  the  meaning  "this,"  also 
makes  this  view  improbable. 

We  now  turn  to  the  consideration  of  idem  as  a 
definite  article.  It  was  pointed  out  above  (pp.  196, 
193)  that  is  served  sometimes  as  a  definite  article  and 
that  idem  was  weakened  in  meaning  until  it  became 
practically  synonymous  with  is.  The  use  of  both  is 
and  idem  an  article  is  shown  by  the  nineteen  cases 

1  Istarum  is,  of  course,  used  here  in  the  sense  of  harum. 


Idem  as  Definite  Article.  207 

in  which  i\\ey  represent  the  Greek  article  in  the  Latin 
translations  of  the  Pastor  Hermae.  All  but  four  of 
these  passages  are  found  in  the  ninth  Parable;  two  are 
in  the  eighth  and  two  in  the  fifth.  Both  the  Palatine 
and  the  Vulgate  translation  of  the  Pastor  show  the 
usage,  eleven  cases  falling  to  the  former.  The  in- 
stance in  Sim.  5,6,5  is  especially  noteworthy.  The 
Greek  text  reads  aim)  ij  adp'=,  h  rj  xarojy.yjtXE  TO  nveufia  rd 
ayiov^  idouXeuffe  rtS  Ttveufiart .  .  .  . ,  ;j.yjdsv  oXiuq  iiidvatra  rd 
TTveufia.  6.  TcoXiTsuaaiiivfjv  oZv  ouv  ao-ijv  xaXSyq  xal  dyvcH^  xal 
ffu[yx'^o7:id<Ta(Tav  tu>  nvsufxaTt.  The  Versio  Palatina 
translates:  hoc  ergo  corpus,  in  quo  deductus  est  spi- 
ritus  sanctus,  paruit  eidem  spiritui..  ..,  nee  omnino 
eundem  spiritum  maculauit.  6.  unde  cum  idem  cor- 
pus recte  atque  caste  eidem  spiritui  paruisset . .  . . 
The  Versio  Vulgata  has  :  hoc  ergo  corpus,  in  quo 
deductus  est  spiritus  sanctus,  seruiuit  ei  1|  sic  cod.  V; 
illi  ed.  pr.  Cott.  Dress.  ||  spiritui..  ..,  neque  omnino 
maculauit  spiritum  ilium,  cum  igitur  corpus  hoc 
paruisset  omni  tempore  recte  atque  caste ....  Note 
the  alternation  of  forms  of  is  and  ille  with  eundem. 
In  this  way  idem  in  the  Palatina  corresponds  to 
is  or  ille  of  the  Vulgata  in  8,1,2;  9,6,3;  9,9,4;  while 
this  relation  of  Palatina  and  Vulgata  is  reversed  in 
9,7,7  and  9,11,6  (in  this  section,  ilia  was  printed  in 
ed.  pr.  of  the  Vulgata).  In  only  one  passage  (9,9,4 
in  eodem  campo)  besides  that  quoted  above  do  both 
translations  show  idem.  In  six  passages,  8,2,8;  9,1,6; 
9.2,3;  9>4,3;  9,10,2;  9,10,3;  the  Palatina  has  idem, 
while  the  Vulgata  makes  no  attempt  to  render  the 
article;  in  four  other  cases,  9,4,4;  9,7.4;  9,8,5;  9, 11,6; 
the  relation  of  the  two  translations  is  reversed  in  this 


2o8  The  Lati7i  Pro7ioiins. 

particular.  In  most  of  these  passages  it  is  clear  that 
idem  not  merely  stands  as  a  substitute  for  the  definite 
article,  but  is  synonymous  with  it. 

It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  ipse  developed  into  a 
definite  article  in  some  parts  of  the  territory  of  the 
Romance  languages  {cf.  Meyer-Iyiibke,  Gramm.  der 
roman.  Sprachen  11,129  f). 

The  earliest  positive  evidence  of  the  usage  is  found 
in  the  translations  of  the  Pastor  Hermae: 
{See  following  page.) 


Ipse  =  Definite  Article. 


209 


a> 


tn 


05      tA)      O      _^ 


u 


O 

p. 


S 
a. 


.    a, 

3   :=! 


a 

I 

rt 

-<-> 

Oh 

03 

a 

:3 
0 

t/3 

;3 

r^ 

03 

^ 

-4^ 

■1— < 

c3 

)-l 
0 

a 

0 

Oh 

^ 

1 

3 

^0 

, 

«s 

^ 

, 

ly> 

(0 

0 

0 

N 

>^ 

-^ 

i^. 

& 

-« 

0 
H 

^ 

s; 

'O 

^0 

'Ho 

t- 

15, 


3 


'S5» 


yp 
R- 


a 
■a. 


tfi 

OJ 

o3 

1) 

03 

a 

g 

trt 

a 

03 

1-h' 

tfi 

0 

04 

6 

Oh 

s 

C3 

"T-H 

03 
PLh 

to 

a 

03 

(H-H 

0 

H-t 
tfi 

Oh 

_Oh 

a 

a; 

H-) 

03 

•  rH 
tfi 

5 

0 

OS 

0 

0 

tfi 
Oh 

;3 

H-> 

a 

0 

OJ 
> 

rH 

a 
1— I 

•»-H 

Vh 

H-H 

Oh 
tfi 

Oh 

•»-H 

CO 
10 
10 

<U 

1 
03 

a 

03 

H-J 

Oh 

•rH 

tfi 
•  rH 

H-l 

Oh 
1— ( 

-i-i 

OJ 

00 

hH 

»— 1 
00" 

HH 

o3 
Oh 

6s 

03 

t/5 
Oh 

tfi 

Oh 

•t— ( 

00 

HH 

00" 

HH 

a 

6s 

0 

Oh 

6 

a 

03 

d 
0 

a 

M 

. 

. 

, 

tfi 

a 

a5 

a 

tfi 

a 

a 

a 

a 

Oh 

•1-H 

a 

2IO  The  Latin  Pronoims. 


r<0 


^It  fft  f1  >  "^  g  T^* 

^5     C     03     rt 


^        ^  1^  S  g  5  3 


§  a  S    ^  I     -  >^  S 

.22  1!  2         2"  B,  ^  0)  ci3 

^  >H  -s  £  5  a  -a  ^  5 

t«  Ji  ^  S    o        .tr  o  :^ 

.^  §  §  ^'    S  -    ^  S«  rt 

•9  bo  O 

c3  c3  a> 


>  3     c     «    t-fs- 


a 


'a 


« 


SS-  rii  "<     "~ 

*3  "-i-i  •     .     "<       • 

""  t  -    -^  ^5   '§^^^ 


bo  ,     >< 


3 


O 


"73  t;    -Kj    "o    .xo 


0) 

«>    "^         -^  ti    9  -y  -^ 

^s  ^  ^a  a -5  .2  II  ^-S 

■en  tn  ^  .W 


a.& 


Ipse  =  Defiyiite  Article.  211 

Hieronymus  seems  to  have  kept  his  translation  free 
from  this  remarkable  construction.  It  is  found,  how- 
ever, in  the  earlier  translations  both  of  the  Septuagint 
and  of  the  New  Testament.  There  are  citations  in 
Ronsch,  Itala  und  Vulgata  p.  423  from  3  Esdras  8,15; 
45;  50;  71;  92.  In  the  Collectanea  Philol.,  p.  186  (  = 
Z.  f.  0.  Gymn.  1877),  the  same  scholar  cites  a  passage 
from  the  Acta  S.  Timothei  p.  12,57  (^d.  Usener,  1887) 
ipsis  quae  diximus  superportis  (rot?  iTttcpepoidvoiq)  palis 
et  lapidibus.  I  am  convinced  that  in  passages  of  this 
kind,  in  which  the  Greek  definite  article  followed  by  a 
participle  is  rendered  into  L,atin,  the  Romans  must 
have  felt  the  ipse  as  rather  nearer  in  meaning  to  is 
than  to  the  article.  It  was  their  almost  invariable 
practice  to  render  6  -f-  participle  by  is . .  . .  qui . .  . .  or  by 
ille. .  .  .qui. .  . .  In  Ignatius,  Epist.  ad  Phil,  (inter- 
polata)  4  ipse  omnia  euocans  et  mouens,  representing 
6  Ttdvra  xakwv  xivwv^  the  use  of  ipse  is  justified  by  its 
antecedent.  In  the  interpretatio  uetus  of  the  Epistle 
of  Barnabas  there  is  no  example. 

Commodian,  Apol.  657  reads 

In  nuptiis  fuerat  inuitatus  matre  cum  ipsa. 

Here  Dombart  (vid.  Index,  5.  v.)  takes  ipse  "pro 
articulo."  Yet  we  may  well  doubt  whether  ipsa  is 
not  here  justified  by  the  frequency  with  which  it  is 
used  by  children  to  designate  their  parents.  In  like 
manner,  Arnobius,  Ad  Nat.  1,2,  f.  ib  rerum  ipsa  quae 
dicitur  appellaturque  natura,  seems  to  be  an  equivalent 
to  rj  xaXofiivT)  ^oaiq,  and  may  perhaps  be  explained  like 
the  passage  from  the  Acta  S.  Timothei. 

In  lyactantius'  De  Opificio  Dei  ipse  is  repeatedly 
used  in  describing  the  structure  of  the  human  body 


212  The  Latin  P7'onou7is. 

with  an  extremely  weak  force,  and  seems  closely  to 
approximate  the  definite  article  in  meaning. 

Pompeius,  the  Grammarian,  who  shows  so  many 
peculiarities  in  the  use  of  the  pronouns,  offers  us  a 
curious  passage  p.  i33,27(K)  si  dicas,  "Tityre  maxi- 
me,"  T.  m.  duo  sunt  dactyli,  ecce  nihil  superest.  sed 
ipsi  pedes  finiunt  ipsam  elocutionem.  Similarly  Plan- 
ciades  Fulgentius,  Mitol.  3,9  (p.  76,8)  uox  uero  habet 
gradus  sj^mphoniarum  innumeros,  quantum  natura 
donauerit  ipsam  uocem  ut  habeat  arsis  et  thesis  quas 
nos  I^atine.  Further  see  Placitus,  De  Medicinis  ex 
Animal.  2,5;   17,14. 

Meyer- lyiibke  finds  traces  of  the  use  of  ipse  as  an 
article  not  only  in  Sardinia  {cf.  Beger,  I^atein.  und 
Roman.  Berlin,  1863,  pp.  51.  54),  but  also  in  the 
Balearic  Islands  (Mallorca)  and  on  both  sides  of  the 
Pyrenees  (Ampurdan  and  Gascogne).  We  may  con- 
clude, by  viewing  Meyer-Liibke' s  statement  in  con- 
nection with  the  occurrence  of  the  usage  in  the  west- 
Aquitanian  Itinerarium  Burdigalense  and  the  Pere- 
grinatio  Sanctae  Siluiae  from  southern  Gaul,  that  ipse 
=  6  obtained  a  fairly  firm  footing  in  southern  Gaul, 
quite  a  little  further  to  the  eastward.  Fiurthermore 
two  documents  in  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale  (one 
from  the  j^ear  679-80  and  the  other  a  document  of 
Pepin's  time  from  Aubin,  district  of  Telle,  dated  750) 
bear  witness  to  the  existence  of  the  usage  farther 
north.  Hilary  of  Poitiers,  although  having  ipse  = 
idem,  does  not  seem  to  know  the  usage,  perhaps  be- 
cause he  made  efforts  to  keep  his  style  closer  to  the 
classical  usage,  which  his  early  training  in  Rhetoric 
would  naturally  lead  him  to  do. 


Summary.  213 

If  now  we  put  together  all  the  changes  here  treated, 
and  such  others  as  I  myself  or  others  have  noted,  but 
which  are  for  various  reasons  not  discussed  fully  in 
this  book,  we  obtain  the  following  general  view: 

is  (demonstrative)  >  talis 

>  is  (determinative) 

>  definite  article 

>  obsolete' 

Is  was  replaced  by  ille,  hie  and  ipse;  also,  but  less 
extensively,  by  idem,  and  occasionally  by  iste. 

ille  >  talis 

>  is  (determinative) 

>  definite  article 

As  a  demonstrative  ille  was  replaced  by  the  com- 
pounds eccum-illum  ( =  Italian  quello) ,  ecce-ille 
(=  French  eel),  which  were  themselves  further  rein- 
forced by  [il]la[c];  cf.  Engl,  "that  there." 

idem  >  item 

>  is  (determinative) 

>  obsolete 

Idem  was  reinforced  or  replaced  by  the  expressions 
hie  idem  (which  for  phonetic  reasons  could  not  long 
have  maintained  itself  in  the  nom.  pi.  masc  and  fern.), 
iste  idem,  ille  idem;  is  ipse  (especially  in  the  form  id 
ipsum),  hie  ipse,  iste  ipse  (and  later  istum  ipsum, 
which  yielded  the  Italian  stesso),  idem  ipse  (which, 
according  to  Dietz  yielded  Italian  desso,  also  explained 


'  This  means  that  as  a  free  and  independent  word  it  passed 
out  of  use. 


214  '^^^^  Latin  Pro?W7i?is. 

as  id  ipsum),  ille  ipse;  ipsissimus,  met-ipsismus  (= 
French  meme). 

hie  >  tahs 

>  is  (determinative) 

>  definite  article 

>  obsolete 

Hie  in  its  pronominal  use  was  replaced  mainly  by 
iste,  which  still  remains  in  Spanish;  ecce-hoc  (=  French 
ce,  which  has  itself  so  far  depreciated  in  meaning  that 
it  is  reinforced  by  both  ci  <  ecce-hic  and  la  <  iliac) 
and  eccum  istum,  from  which  is  derived  Italian  questo, 
which  is  itself  sometimes  reinforced  by  qui  <  ecce  hie. 

iste  >  talis 

>  ille 

>  hie  (demonstrative)  >  hie  (determinative) 

=  is  (determinative) 

>  (?)  definite  article 

Iste  as  deuTspoTpcTov  was  replaced  by  eccum-ti(for  tibi)- 
istum,  Italian  codesto;  and,  if  the  statement  of  Ascoli 
cited  above,  is  correct,  by  ipsa,  ipso  (for  ipsum).  As 
rcpcjTOTpLTov  it  was  replaced  by  ecce-iste  (French  cette) 
and  eccum-istum  (Italian  questo). 

ipse  >  idem  (expressing  identity) 

>  ille  or  is  (determinative) 

>  definite  article 

>  obsolete  (in  some  localities) 

Ipse  was  replaced  by  the  compounds  id  ipsum,  etc., 
met-ipsimus. 

The  changes  discussed  in  this  book  are  frequently, 
if  not  usually,  designated  in  scientific  works  by  such 
expressions   as    "confusions   of   meaning,"    "barbar- 


Conclusion.  215 

isms"  and  "  Verwilderung,"  terms  which  are  mislead- 
ing, inexact  and  obscure.  Such  terms  imply,  more- 
over, that  the  person  who  uses  them  has  either  con- 
sciously or  unconsciously  assumed  that  there  is  a  fixed 
standard  of  usage  in  language.  It  xaz.y  seem  to  some 
scholars  that  a  protest  against  this  careless  use  of 
words,  is  a  work  of  supererogation.  Not  at  all  so; 
because  the  very  use  of  such  expressions  implies  that 
the  classical  consciousness  is  not  yet  entirely  emanci- 
pated from  false  notions  respecting  the  superiority  of 
Ciceronian  lyatin  and  the  "corruptions"  of  later  Latin, 
notions  that  have  been  rife  since  the  days  of  Lauren- 
tius  Valla's  De  Linguae  Latinae  Elegantiis,  and  even 
earlier.  Many  are  still  seeking  for  a  "standard  of 
usage"  suited,  for  example,  to  students  of  Latin  prose 
composition. 

I  must  protest  against  the  use  of  the  phrases  "con- 
fusion of  meaning,"  "Verwilderung,"  etc.,  to  desig- 
nate such  changes  as  ille  >  is,  iste  >  hie  >  is,  and 
others;  and  I  may  make  my  position  clear  by  one  or 
two  illustrations.  Take  the  sentence  from  Tertul- 
lian,  De  Spectac.  21  sic  ergo  euenit,  ut  qui  in  publico 
uix. .  .  .tunicam  leuet,  idem  in  circo. .  .  .exuet;  ut  et 
qui . .  . . ,  ipse . .  . . ,  et  qui . .  . . ,  idem ....  No  reason- 
able person  would  suppose  that,  when  Tertullian  com- 
posed these  lines,  there  existed  in  his  mind  any  confu- 
sion as  to  the  respective  meanings  of  ipse  and  idem, 
any  more  than  would  arise  in  the  mind  of  an  English 
speaking  person  on  reading  the  paraphrase  :  'The 
man  who  on  the  street  would  scarcely  remove  his 
coat,  would  do  so  without  hesitation  in  the  circus;  and 
the  very  person  who,  etc while  h e  who . .  . . ' 


2i6  The  Latin  Pronouns. 

TertuUian  had  occasion  to  express  the  idea  of  identity 
in  three  successive  coordinate  and  symmetrical  sen- 
tences, and  he  chose  to  employ  two  different  words  to 
express  that  idea.  Their  very  difference,  as  he  appre- 
ciated their  meanings,  was  doubtless  the  factor  that 
determined  his  choice.  The  other  parallel  sentences 
cited  on  p.  173  supra  should  be  explained  in  the  same 
way.  On  the  contrary,  cases  in  which  a  foreigner, 
with  only  an  imperfect  acquaintance  with  the  L,atin 
tongue,  employs  a  word  a  la  Mrs.  Partington,  must,  of 
course,  be  viewed  in  an  entirely  different  light.  Yet 
even  such  instances  have  usually  a  very  great  .scientific 
value. 

Accordingly  it  is  to  be  understood,  that  when  the 
expressions  "synonymous,"  "of  the  same  meaning," 
etc.,  are  employed,  in  this  volume,  they  are  used  in  the 
sense  of  the  preceding  paragraph;  and  that  due  allow- 
ance must  always  be  made  for  chronological,  local  and 
individual  peculiarities.  In  addition  to  these,  possible 
influences  of  a  writer's  sources  must  be  weighed.  In 
the  fourth,  fifth,  sixth  and  seventh  centuries  in  par- 
ticular, when  originality  of  thought  was  so  rare  in  the 
Roman  empire,  the  writers  of  books  were  much  given 
to  making  ad  litteram  excerpts  from  earlier  works,  and 
have  frequently  incorporated  into  their  own  produc- 
tions idioms  of  extraneous  origin.  Where  such  an 
influence  has  not  been  operative,  that  is  to  say,  where 
an  author  uses  two  words  as  does  TertuUian  in  the 
passage  cited,  there  invariably  exist  differences  in  the 
elements  composing  the  groups  of  ideas  to  which  the 
words  respectively  correspond,  although,  at  the  same 
time  they  have  important  elements  in  common. 


Conclusion .  217 

In  conclusion  I  must  make  one  further  point  clear. 
The  shifting  in  meaning  that  we  observe  words  to 
have  undergone  is,  as  we  know,  in  every  case  the 
result  of  a  cumulative  series  of  unconscious  and  im- 
perceptible deviations  from  a  former  meaning;  or  to 
speak  more  exactly,  each  time  a  word  is  employed  it 
becomes  really  a  new  word,  the  old  disappearing  in 
the  new.  Accordingly  it  becomes  a  matter  of  prime 
importance  in  studying  the  nature  of  changes  in  mean- 
ing, that  we  should  direct  our  attention  especially  to 
the  minutest  perceptible  gradations  of  meaning,  citing 
such  passages  as  illustrate  them  most  clearly.  Such 
stages  form,  so  to  speak,  "connecting  links"  between 
the  earlier  and  the  later  meanings.'  From  this  point 
of  view,  it  is  more  important  that  we  should  study 
these  minute  gradations  attentively  than  that  we 
should  emphasize  unduly  the  differences  that  exist 
between  two  widely  separated  stages.  Yet,  since  it 
has  been  my  purpose,  throughout  this  book  to  prove 
the  existence  of  distinctly  marked  new  meanings  of 
the  pronouns,  rather  than  to  show  how  such  meanings 
have  come  into  existence,  my  method  of  presentation 
has  often  more  closely  resembled  the  lexicographical, 
which  aims  to  show  that  certain  distinctly  differing 
meanings  exist,  rather  than  the  semasiological,  which 
aims  to  show  how  such  meanings  arise. 


'Cy.  Stocklein,   Bedentungswandel  der  Worter,   Munchen, 
1898. 


30 


SOURCES. 

The  following  Greek  and  Latin  texts  have  been  used  in  the 
preparation  of  this  work.  The  editions  followed  in  making 
citations  are  for  the  most  part  those  used  in  the  preparation  of 
the  Thesaurus  Linguae  Latinae,  a  complete  list  of  which  is 
printed  in  Vol.  I,i  of  that  work  (Leipzig,  1900).  The  excep- 
tions are  indicated  in  the  following  list  by  the  addition  of  the 
editor's  name.  If  the  author's  name  is  followed  by  no  mention 
of  his  works,  it  is  to  be  understood  that  his  entire  extant  works 
are  represented.  Thoroughly  reliable  complete  indices  and 
lexica  have  been  largely  depended  upon  for  those  authors  (indi- 
cated by  an  asterisk^)  where  such  exist;  but  even  in  such  cases 
larger  or  smaller  parts  of  the  given  author's  writings  have  been 
read  in  addition. 

Plautus  ( ^.  ^.v/ra  p.  36).  Terence,  ed.  Fleckeisen,  1S97. 
*Scaenicae  Romanorum  Poesis  Fragmenta.  *Ennius.  *Uete- 
rum  Historicorum  Romanorum  Fragmenta,  1870  and  1S83  .*Cato, 
De  Agricultura,  ed.  Keil,  1882.  *Rhetorica  ad  Herennium. 
Cicero,  *orations,  ed.  Miiller,  1S94,  1896,  1898;  ^philosophical 
works,  ed.  Miiller,  18S9,  1898,  1898;  Brutus  and  De  Oratore  I, 
ed.  Friedrich,  1893;  and  the  letters,  ed.  Miiller-Wesenburg, 
1896,1895.  ■••Caesar.  *Pseudo-Caesar.  Nepos,  ed.  Halm,  187 1. 
Sallust,  ed.  Jordan,  1887.  Varro,  Res  Rusticae,  ed.  Keil,  1884. 
Catullus.  Lucretius,  B'ks.  1,2,3,6,  ed.  Munro,  1893.  hivy,  ed. 
Weissenboni-Muller,  18S8-1892.  *Vitru\dus.  Seneca.  Vale- 
rius Maximus,  Velleius  Paterculus,  ed.  Ellis,  189S.  Celsus, 
1-2,1.  *Tibullus.  Propertius,  ed.  Rothstein,  1898.  *Horace, 
ed.  Keller  and  Holder.  Virgil,  ed.  Ribbeck,  1894,  1895.  Ovid, 
Ibis,  ed.  Ellis,  1881;  other  works  ed.  Merkel-Ehwald,  2d  edi- 
tion.     Manilius,  ed.    lacob,    1846.      Frontinus,    Strategemata, 


lAll  other  indices,  e.  g-.,  Friedlander  to  Juvenal  and  Martial,  andKorn 
to  Ex.  Ponto,  e/c,  have  been  found  incomplete. 


Sources.  219 

B'ks.  I  and  3.  Frontinus  Gromaticus.  Curtius,  ed.  Damst^, 
1897.  Persius,  ed.  Conington-Nettleship,  3d  ed.,  1893.  Seneca, 
Dial.  i-io.  Pliny,  Nat.  Hist.  2,3,6-15,  23-30.  Pliny  the 
Younger,  ed.  Keil,  18S6.  Tacitus,  ed.  Miiller,  1890.  Fronto, 
ed.  Naber,  1867.  Apuleius,  Metamorphoses,  i-io;  Apologia,  in 
part,  ed.  Van  der  Vliet.  Florus.  Suetonius.  Aulus  Gellius. 
Justin.  Lucan,  ed.  Francken,  1897.  Statius,  Siluae,  ed.  Voll- 
mer,  1898;  Theb.  and  Achil.  as  in  Thesaurus  L.  L.  Silius, 
1-10,17.  Martial,  1-7  read,  ed.  Friedliinder,  1886.  Juvenal, 
Satires  2,6,9  ed.  Biicheler,  '^93;  Sat.  1,3-5,7,8,10-16,  ed.  Mayor, 
1888,1893.  Censorinus,  De  Die  Natali.  Scriptores  Historiae 
Augustae.  Eutropius.  Auctor  De  Uiris  lUustribus,  Tauchnitz. 
Aurelius  Victor,  Origo,  ed.  Sepp.  Declamatio  in  Catilinam. 
Aggenus  Urbicus.  Balbus.  Hyginus.  Siculus  Flaccus.  Dares. 
Dictys,  1-3.  Pompeius  Grammaticus,  108  pages.  Ammianus 
Marcellinus,  1-6.  Macrobius,  Saturnalia  1-5;  Somnium  Scipio- 
nis  pp.  476-526.  Boethius,  De  Consolatione  Philosophiae.  His- 
toria  Apollonii  Regis  Tyri.  Scholia  Terentiana,  ed.  Schlee, 
1893.     Poetae  Latini  Minores  Vols.  Ill, IV. 

Of  the  Patristic  writers  the  following,  (all'  in  the  Corpus 
Scriptorum  Ecclesiasticorum  Romanorum  Vindobonense) :  Mi- 
nucius  FeHx.  Tertullian.  Cyprian,  1,2,4-13;  Epistulae  1-43- 
Pseudo-Cyprian  pp.  283-325.  Commodian.  Arnobius  1-4. 
Lucius  Caecilius,  De  Mortibus  Persecutorum.  Firmicus  Mater- 
nus.  Augustine,  Epistulae  1-3 1.  Sulpicius  Severus.  Priscil- 
lian.  Fulgentii  tres,  ed.  Helm.  Alcimus  A\ntus,  ed.  Peiper,  18S3 
(=  Mon.  Germ.  Histor.,  Auct.  Ant.  VI,  2)  opera  2-32,  and  fr.  VI, 
ej^  Homil.  Libris.  Itinera  Hierosolymitana  Vol.  I.  Eugippus, 
Uita  Severini.  Translations  of  Greek  writings:  Barnabas  and 
Ignatius,  ed.  Gebhardt-Harnack-Zahn,  1S75,  1876.  Clemens 
Romanus,  ed.  Morin,  1894.  Pastor  Hermae  (Vulgata  ed.  Hil- 
genfeld,  1873,  and  Palatina  ed.  Gebhardt-Harnack,  1877).  Ire- 
naeus.  New  Testament  ex  Hers.  S.  Hieronymi  (all  of  Matthew 
and  parts  of  the  other  Gospels  have  been  carefully  compared 
with  the  Greek  original  and  the  texts  of  the  Ante-Hieronymian 
translations:  Veronensis  (b),  Colbertinus  (c),  Sangallenses  1394, 
172  and  bib.  Vadiana  70  (n,  o,  p),  Ambrosianus  (s) ,  Bernensis(t), 

1  Except  as  otherwise  noted. 


220  The  Latin  Protiouns. 

Vindobonensis  502  (v).  This  list  of  versions  is  concluded  on 
p.  139.  I  have  used  the  following  versions  only  in  so  far  as 
they  are  incompletely  accessible  in  Sabbatier's  citations:  Cor- 
beienses  (fi,  f''),  Sangermanenses  (g',  g^),  Augustine's  Speculum 
has  also  been  made  use  of  to  some  extent.  The  Uersio  Authen- 
tica  of  Justinian's  Novellae  Constitution es  I-XX  has  also  been 
compared  with  the  Greek  original. 

The  following  writers  have  been  read  in  larger  or  smaller 
selections:  Varro,  De  Lingua  Latina.  Petronius.  Valerius  Flac- 
cus,  ed.  Langen,  1896.  Gains,  ed.  Huschke,  1S86.  Porphyrio  in 
Horatium.  Boethius,  De  Musica;  [De  Arithmetica] .  The  fol- 
lowing Patristic  writers  in  the  C.  S.  E.  R.':  Lactantius,  Institu- 
tiones.  Novation.  Ambrosius.  Hieronymus  (Migne).  Rufinus. 
Prudentius.  Paulinus  of  Nola.  Optatus.  Filastrius.  Ruricus. 
Faustus.  Corippus,  ed.  Partsch,  1879  (=  Mon.  Ger.  Hist.,  Auc. 
Ant.  III).  Augustine,  tiaria.  Hilarian,  Tractatus  in  Psalmos. 
Pelagius.  Orosius.  Vicentius.  Prosper.  Merobaudes  (Migne). 
Salvianus.  Claudian,  ed.  Birt.,  1892  (=  Mon.  Ger.  Hist.,  Auc. 
Ant.  X)  Victor  Vitensis.  Fortunatus.  Idacius  (Migne).  En- 
nodius,  ed.  Vogel,  1885  (=  Mon.  Ger.  Hist.,  Auc.  Ant.  VII). 
Isidore  (Migne). 

I  trust  that  I  have  overlooked  no  modern  authority  of 
importance.  I  have  been  greatly  helped  in  the  collection  of 
my  material  by  the  citations  illustrating  the  use  of  the  pronouns 
to  be  found  in  the  appropriate  sections  of  various  monographs 
on  the  Ivatinity  of  particular  writers.  No  list  of  these  is  here 
given,  since  they  may  be  found  in  Schmalz's  Lateinische  Syn- 
tax, especially  pp.  202-213.  The  more  important  receive  par- 
ticular mention  in  their  appropriate  connection  in  the  body  of 
this  work. 


1  Except  as  otherwise  noted. 


ADDENDA  AND  CORRIGENDA. 

p.  24,  1.  30.  Cicero,  Tusc.  Dis.  3,28,  quotes  Enn. 
Fab,  204  ei  rei  sustuli;  but  Seneca,  De  Consol.  9,30, 
following  the  natural  tendencies  of  his  period,  alters  it 
to  huic  rei  sustuli. 

p.  38,  1.  6.  The  position  of  hoc  in  I,ucr.  3,531 
does  not  favor  Munro's  conjecture. 

p.  41,  1.  26.  In  Gellius  11,9,1  cod.  B  omits  the 
explanatory  sentence  in  which  eo  stands. 

p.  44,  1.  17.     Read:  Non  eo  ||  ego  cod.  C  ||  haec. 

p.  45,  1.  12.  Read:  ZA^P  II  nos  eo  cod.  E;  non  eo 
m.odo  codd.  H P  U  C;  non  in  eo  modo  cod.  B  \\  ;  in 

p.  45, 1.  13.  In  Nepos,  Chab.  1,2  Fleckeisen,  keep- 
ing the  MSS.  reading  ducem,  supplies  eo  frustratus  est 
quod  after  cateruis. 

p.  57,  1.  16.  Read:  instances  besides  loi  and  102, 
where  Biicheler  does  not  adopt  it,  (see 

p.  65,  1.  3.  Read:  9  extr.  (This  passage  is  by  some 
regarded  as  spurious);  22,8; 

p.  68,  1.  2.  Read:  5,16,2  ad  hoc  Veientique  || 
veienti  quoque  codd.  recc.  et  edd.  pleraeque  ||.  So  also 
in  1.  25. 

p.  71,  1.  21.  Read:  expeditiores  (Faern's  correc- 
tion to  ad  iter  expeditiores  is  accepted  by  Ktibler) ,  and 

PP-  74/-  1^0  the  instances  of  obid  in  Livy  add: 
42,5.4;  45.16,6;  23,19;  24,3;  to  those  of  ob  haec  add: 
21. 53. 11;  to  ob  ea  add:  35,14,4;  42,10,15.     Hyginus, 


222  Addenda  and  Corrigeyida. 

Fab.,  has  ob  id  21  times,  ob  hoc  4  times.  To  the  in- 
stances of  ob  hoc  from  PHny,  Epist.  add  1,10,11  and 
8,22,3.     See  Reissinger,  op.  cit.,  part  II. 

p.  81,  1.  5.     Read:  hanc;  illam..  ..hanc:  haec, 

92,    1.    10.     Read:  teterrima;  Livy    7,34,9    (signa 
uertunt);  Sail. 

p.    122,  1.  28.     Read:  istas  ||  ista  coni.  Guyetus  || 

p.    128,   1.   20.     Read:    23,1-2    huic   homini;  25,1 
huius  uiri;  2; 

p.  183,  1.  8.     Read:  stands  Spain  (Isidore)  and 

p.  188,  1.  6.     Read:  ir.dvu} 


AA    000  531  352    3 


LOS  Ai. 


L.IF, 


